[Archive]

Posted By: m mac

This is timely given the latest flap at the National Archives. The Met should be restrictive of the Burdick collection given the information that has trickled out regarding its condition during the past 10-15 years. This is the only way that collection will be preserved for serious research 100 years from now. I'd imagine that the Met has millions of items and thousands of finding aids. The Burdick collection is probably not their most valuable collection or even their most important collection. They probably have dozens of research projects ongoing at any time. If Burdick wrote the finding aid, as it sounds likely, only an archivist who has an interest in that collection would know anything specific about the collection. It sounds like the collection is so huge that no one there is willing to spend the imense amount of time required to either learn Burdick's system or re-cataloging the collection. Hence, unless the "hobby" is willing to fund a position for the Burdick collection, it's not going to happen anytime soon at the Met.

Regarding deaccession, if the collection is in their archives, it's probably not going to happen. The collection is one-of-a-kind, and I do not think that the Met requires the funds. (Another good reason not to give your collection to a museum - I hope that Mike Gidwitz doesn't give away his uncut sheet collection to start a musuem because once he's gone, the musuem will probably restrict access to all except the serious researcher of 20th century pop culture printing techniques or some such nonsense).

I have not visited the Met. I have visited archives (not baseball) at the National Archives, the Library of Congress, Columbia U., U of Virginia, Harvard U. Library, and others. I do want to visit the library at the Baseball HOF. In general, I have had the best success examining things I want to see by calling or emailing in advance to learn of restrictions, availability, hours, etc. regarding the particular collection I desire to examine. For most archives, in my experience, checking the web page is not enough. If you just show up, you're in for a world of disappointment. I have found that many places have portions of their collections not readily accessible. If they know you're coming, they might retrieve the items in advance so you do not have to sit around for hours waiting on your request.

To get into an archive building, it's not unusual to have to provide ID as well as register. They probably will not let you into the stacks to examine the collection. Insterad, you'll have to wait in a reading room. To get into the reading room, you have to sign forms that you'll abide by their rules. Usually, you cannot bring anything into the reading room (some places allow you to bring some combination of pencils, electronic equipment or your own papers with restrictions). Once you're in, the archivists usally limit the number of requests outstanding at any time as well as the number of items you have at your table. If you've ever been in a stacks, you know that you'll find things you wouldn't otherwise as well as quickly determine the items you really have to see. This is not going to happen unless you acquire credentials with the particular institution. For instance, to get direct access to the "raw" Burdick collection, you'd probably have to obtain a Ph.D. in art history and employment at the Met in the archives. Maybe maintenance could get in there, too. In comparison, try entering a public law school library and its stacks off the street - it's easy in comparison.

Collections usually have some missing items. It's upsetting and the archivists really do not care since those items probably are misplaced, lost or stolen by previous researchers and the topic is not in the archivists' area of research.

Usually, the archivists do not share your interests or pursuits and so not care about your excitement. Most of the finding aids are incomplete so you're going to be both surprised and disappointed when the boxes and folders are delievered to your table. This is why important documents continued to be uncovered all the time in archives and courthouses across the country. I cannot tell you how many times I have had my excitement met with the archivist's equivalent of "Get lost."

Expect to have your privacy respectfully invaded upon exiting the reading room. You will not obtain the same deference as Mr. Berger - Oh! I think that person took the Wagner card; I'll check after she leaves and then report the incident to my supervisor. For you, some big man (probably) will go through your stuff right there on the spot.

Finally, in addition to making their collections inaccessible to the public off the street, most archives do not have specialists for each and every collection. I have found the National Archives to have the best staff, but those archivists do not necessarily have specific knowledge about the contents of a collection - just the cataloging and location of the collection. The Met appears not to have archivists that research picture cards. If they did, they would probably have a contact who'd share information upon inquiry. If the responding archvist says generally, "Yes, the collection is available. If you tell me what you need to see, you may call it up for you in advance if you tell us when you're coming," she has no clue what's in the collection, what it's about or why your request or their collection is important, just that the collection is present at the archive.