What's the point of stealing these? Vanity? You can't exactly melt them down and sell them for scrap - their resale value is basically zero - when the value comes from being unique, doesn't that make it hard to make money off of the item?
FTA —
"These books are extremely valuable, but more importantly they are irreplaceable and are of great importance to international cultural heritage," said Det Insp Andy Durham, from the Metropolitan police's Specialist Crime South command.
The works were being stored in a warehouse ahead of being transported to a specialist book auction in Las Vegas, in the US, when they were stolen
Only if they were just a bunch of gold bars when you stole them. If you stole, say, the Swedish crown jewels ( https://www.thelocal.se/20190211/police-confirm-swedens-stol... ), you could pop off all the jewels and melt down the gold for its weight value, but that would be losing almost 100% of the value.
The thieves can't auction off their books by listing them at Christie's. But that's not the same claim as "the thieves can't auction off their books".
Collectors don't wholly stow their collections away for nobody to see. Many of them actively cooperate with heritage institutions and loaning out for temporary or even permanent exhibitions.
Why? First, because doing so is an expression of power and status. Second, because heritage institutions are scientific authorities. Having your works on displays asserts their authenticity, and thereby their value.
Barring a handful of well known names, heritage institutions, publicly funded smaller organizations in particular, have always struggled to acquire enough resources to stay operational. Sponsoring, private donations and fundraising events are indispensable. There's a good reason why the Met Gala is a thing. And even the Met struggles financially. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art#Fin...
Your comment reflects on the fact that heritage objects are hidden from the public's view when they end up in a private collection. Now, what's on public display in a museum doesn't constitute the entire collection either. It's a selection made by curators and scientists based on historical and cultural significance. The Met collection counts 2 million objects, for instance.
Some objects are only put on display once every few decades in a temporary exhibition because their fragility and their intrinsic value require expensive logistics, insurances,...
Finally, consider how galleries and museums acquire objects and ammend their collections. It doesn't happen by accident. Either it happens because a private collector bequeaths their own collection to a public institution; or it's because public institutions also participate in auctions.
I understand the point you're trying to make. There are, indeed, private collectors who simply acquire objects at auctions which then disappear from the public's view for many decades. That's absolutely not a new thing
One issue I've noticed is that there are far too many scattered museums in a lot of places, mostly converted homes, churches and the like. Some of it might be ripe for consolidation.
You must admit people who have the kind of money to throw around to buy a board seat probably have some business success as well as interest in the subject, so it isn't all bad. It gets people who care and are good.
That is the alternative view of the situation. There is some real merit, but I'm not sure how much I believe it.
The issue comes when many of these places have spent close to 60-70% of the budget, sometimes more, on fundraisers. Not to mention, the younger moneyed crowd these days (the 35-50s demographic) has in no way been enticed to donate by these museums, unless they were part of pre-built networks.
There is a global non-governmental organisation that represents the museum domain and formally defines what a museum is: [1] [2]
> “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”
[1] https://icom.museum/en/ [2] https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum...
This definition is also found it's way in public governance when it comes to recognizing an entity that keeps a collection as a museum, and providing matching public funding.
Of course, the term "museum" isn't a protected label. And so, while you may see many scattered museums in a lot of places, that doesn't mean that they are publicly recognized as such nor adhere to the formal definition.
> In most cases, the collectors themselves take on the costs of general preservation (we have to sign a contract explicitly stating the cases where the institutions are responsible for damage, idk how it works with larger donors)
These are indemnity contracts. This is a common practice. Since museums aren't the owners of the objects, they will want to avoid liability. This is determined by the extent to which museums are able to insure themselves against damage, theft or loss when loaning an object.
Collectors who loan out objects aren't responsible for the day to day operations - such as 'general preservation - of a museum, nor are they held to fund those operations. However, loan contracts do contain assurances and describe formal conditions trying to ensure the protection of the object during transit and on location.
Since a loaning objects always constitutes a risk, a bond of trust between museums and collectors is paramount. This is crucial role played by curators. And it's another reason why networking events are important.
> my honest opinion is that most of these places spend far more on organizing the fundraisers rather than paying for artwork and preservation
But have you also verified your opinion and actually looked into the economics of running museums? Many large museums publish their finances in great detail since they also receive a public endowment, subsidy or funding.
The Met is a great example of that:
https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/policies-and-documen...
For 2019, the Met did spend some 18 million $ on promotional and special events, whereas gifts and grants ran a total of 59 million $, and admissions accounted for another 55 million $ in revenue. (admissions being a hot and contested debate in this case [3])
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/08/met-mus...
I didn't mean to say "general preservation" of the museum, but rather the general preservation of the artwork, depending on its type and age. Different art, different costs, all handled at the collector's expense - museums don't have to pay for that, but only for specialized display casings and security systems, which are a fraction of the cost of the piece.
The Met is actually one of the better run places that I often hold up to as a benchmark. Not to mention, it's "classy" enough and was prudent enough to keep the young crowd in its sights. My qualms were against aged places, largely in Europe, who have to rely on government subsidy and if that isn't available, use their funds to fundraise more, while many a time their curators are paid a 6 figure income.
I think the author was very aware of what they were doing when they put those two sentences next to each other.
The difficulty is fencing them for something approaching their value if you’re not part of “that world”, I’d expect that’s what the thief did not consider.
Absolutely not. Again, every few years there are cases of millions worth of books having been stolen (and sold). Priore operated for 20 years.
Discretion is highly valued in the art world, and collectors are generally careless at best, they will balk at obviously stolen items but a thin layer of legitimacy will suffice.
But that is why fencing rate art is not trivial unless un steal to order.
A great book talking about the secret work of rare books is "the club dumas", which I highly recommend. The movie was quite bad on the other hand.
Seeing how many science libraries are simply throwing away so many historically significant math books, I'd say that quite a few of these "vanitous" people may be simply concerned about their conservation. A similar thing, in a much larger scale, may happen for art. As they say, today's thief is tomorrows conservator.