Museums are responsible not only for acquiring, preserving, and interpreting objects, but also for deciding what should happen when materials no longer serve their collection, operational, or educational needs. That responsibility is less visible to the public, but it is no less important.
Museums may sell duplicate books, items donated specifically for resale, surplus equipment, commercially produced collectibles, or materials that have completed an approved deaccessioning process. These sales can reduce overcrowding, place useful property with new owners, and generate revenue without compromising the permanent collection.
The fact that a museum sells something does not, by itself, indicate poor stewardship. The larger concern is how the decision was made and whether the institution can explain it. Before an item leaves museum control, the museum should know that it owns the property, understand why it is no longer needed, and determine whether legal, donor, safety, or ethical restrictions apply.
These requirements may seem excessive when an item appears common, damaged, duplicated, or unused. However, some of the greatest mistakes begin with the assumption that an object will be simple to dispose of. Once it has been sold, dismantled, separated from its records, or transferred into private ownership, recovery may be difficult or impossible.
Public Perception Begins Before the Sale
Museum staff generally understand that an institution may hold several categories of property. An object may belong to the permanent collection, serve an educational or research purpose, or be classified as a duplicate or donation accepted for sale. Museums also own tools, vehicles, machines, furniture, exhibit components, and other operational assets that were never intended to become part of the collection.
The public may not recognize those distinctions. An aircraft, historic vehicle, fossil, uniform, book, or technical instrument displayed or stored at a museum may simply be assumed to belong to the permanent collection. When several visible objects appear for sale at once, some people may conclude that the museum is selling its collection, abandoning its mission, or experiencing financial distress.
That interpretation can develop even when staff have followed an appropriate internal process. It becomes harder to correct when a sale is advertised carelessly or the institution cannot clearly explain what is being offered. Language suggesting a “fire sale,” “liquidation,” “everything must go,” or a need to “clear out the collection” may attract attention, but it can also create the impression that cultural property is being treated as excess inventory.
Public messaging should identify the material accurately and explain why it is available. Approved surplus, duplicate publications, donated-for-sale property, and deaccessioned collection objects are not interchangeable categories. The museum should be prepared to explain what review occurred and how permanent collection materials, restricted donations, and historically significant objects were protected.
How the sale is presented may influence whether the public views it as responsible management or as evidence that the institution is placing revenue ahead of stewardship. Public perception is not a secondary concern added after the decision. It is part of the decision itself.
Ownership Does Not Resolve the Ethical Question
A museum may legally own an object and still face serious ethical or reputational concerns over its sale. Ownership is essential, but it does not answer whether the object should be sold, whether donor expectations have been considered, or whether the transaction supports the institution’s mission and professional responsibilities.
The Berkshire Museum learned how quickly an institutional decision could become a national controversy when it announced plans in 2017 to sell 40 works from its collection, including two paintings by Norman Rockwell. The museum intended to use the proceeds to support a new institutional direction, renovations, and its financial future. The plan resulted in protests, litigation, objections from members of Rockwell’s family, and sanctions from professional museum organizations.
Although the sales ultimately generated substantial revenue, the financial result did not settle the larger debate. The controversy centered on whether the museum had treated collection objects as institutional assets that could be converted into operating capital rather than as property held for public benefit.
The Berkshire Museum was not the only institution to face this problem. The Delaware Art Museum, La Salle University, and Randolph College’s Maier Museum of Art also received professional criticism or sanctions when collection sales were connected to debt, operating expenses, or broader institutional needs. These cases demonstrate that the use of proceeds matters as much as the decision to sell. A legally completed transaction can still weaken donor confidence and professional standing if it appears inconsistent with the purpose for which the collection was formed.
These controversies often involve prominent paintings, but the underlying concerns are not limited to art museums. Natural history specimens, archival records, aircraft, historic vehicles, scientific instruments, and technical equipment may carry research value, donor associations, or historical significance that is not immediately apparent. Non-art collections can be especially vulnerable because an object may look obsolete or ordinary to someone who does not understand its history.
Moving Too Quickly Creates Avoidable Mistakes
Sales discussions frequently begin because an object occupies space, appears unused, or seems unrelated to current plans. Someone may see equipment, duplicate publications, unprocessed materials, or aircraft parts in storage and reasonably ask whether the museum could sell them. The problem is not the question. The problem begins when the museum starts looking for buyers before determining exactly what the material is.
An unidentified object may be part of an unprocessed donation, an undocumented loan, or a larger group whose records are stored elsewhere. It may contain components needed for a future restoration or have a connection to another object in the collection. It may have been placed temporarily in an inappropriate location and later mistaken for surplus. Restrictions, title questions, safety concerns, or legal requirements may also be present even when they are not visible from the object itself.
The controversy involving the Nanjing Museum demonstrates how damaging an earlier decision can become when donated property later returns to public attention. A Ming dynasty painting donated to the museum in 1959 resurfaced at auction in 2025 with an opening price reported at more than €10 million. The work had previously been classified as a forgery, transferred out of the museum, and eventually sold for a small amount. Its reappearance led to legal action, public outrage, and government investigations into the handling of donated cultural property.
The full history of that case remains under investigation, but its relevance to museum practice is clear. Describing an object as a forgery, duplicate, surplus item, or material outside the institution’s collecting needs does not remove the obligation to document how that conclusion was reached. It also does not eliminate the possibility that the decision will be questioned decades later by a donor’s family, researchers, public officials, or the wider community.
An object may have been housed, displayed, insured, maintained, or interpreted by a museum for years without the institution holding unrestricted legal title. Long-term possession should not be mistaken for ownership, and poor storage or the absence of a label does not make an object disposable. Before any sale or transfer, the museum must determine who owns the property, who has authority to act, and whether earlier agreements place limits on what may be done.
Incomplete donor and collection records create an equally serious risk. Deeds of gift, correspondence, accession records, restrictions, and earlier review decisions may be incomplete, scattered among departments, or disconnected from the objects they concern. An item may have been treated as museum property for years even though the transfer was never fully documented, while donor conditions governing its use, care, transfer, or sale may no longer be immediately visible.
Sales should not become a shortcut around unresolved collections work. A museum that has not completed its inventory, reconciled donor files, clarified collection status, or connected objects to their documentation is not in a strong position to determine what is truly surplus. Premature sales may remove materials before staff understand their donor history, relationship to other objects, research value, or place within the broader collection.
The larger the documentation backlog, the greater the need for restraint. Revenue goals should not be allowed to outrun the museum’s knowledge of its own holdings. When ownership, donor history, or collection status remains uncertain, the responsible action is to continue the review rather than assume that unidentified or unused material is available.
Controlled delay may frustrate people focused on revenue or storage space, but it is less damaging than selling property the museum did not own, disposing of an irreplaceable component, or learning afterward that an object carried greater significance, risk, or value than anyone understood. A rushed transaction may solve a temporary problem while creating a permanent institutional one.
Collections Knowledge and Authority Must Guide the Sale
Museums benefit from people who understand markets. Auction representatives, dealers, collectors, restorers, historians, and subject specialists may help identify potential buyers, interpret technical features, estimate value, or recommend a sales venue. Their knowledge may be essential when an institution is dealing with specialized property.
Market knowledge does not replace institutional knowledge. Outside specialists may understand buyers and value without knowing the museum’s donor history, collection priorities, prior decisions, documentation gaps, or future needs.
Collections staff are generally the people most familiar with accession records, donor files, collection priorities, storage history, and earlier decisions. They should determine whether an object is eligible for sale before sales personnel begin advertising it or contacting buyers. Other departments may contribute valuable expertise, but their involvement should support rather than replace the collections review.
Interest from a buyer should never become evidence that an object ought to be sold. In some cases, unexpected interest is a reason to examine the property more closely.
A museum sale should not begin because one person in authority decides that unused property could generate revenue. Executive leadership may set institutional priorities, but the authority to manage the museum does not eliminate the policies, professional responsibilities, and approval structures governing its assets.
Before a recommendation reaches executive leadership, the proposed sale should be reviewed by more than one qualified collections staff member whenever staffing permits. One person may understand the accession or donor history, while another may recognize the object’s connection to a larger group, its condition, prior use, or possible value to future exhibitions, research, education, or restoration. Multiple perspectives reduce the risk that property will be classified as unnecessary simply because no single person has the complete history.
That internal review should be coordinated and documented by the Collections Director or other designated professional authority. Differences in staff assessments should be resolved, or clearly identified, before the recommendation moves forward. Executive leadership should receive more than a request to sell. It should receive a supported determination that the museum owns the property, understands its status and significance, has considered restrictions and future needs, and has concluded through professional review that it is eligible for disposition.
Problems often begin when a chief executive or senior leader views a sale as a straightforward fundraising opportunity and assigns the work to people who understand sales, restoration, equipment, or outside buyers but do not have responsibility for collections stewardship. Those individuals may move quickly, identify prospects, suggest prices, or present objects as available before the museum has completed the necessary review.
The speed may appear productive. Buyers are contacted, assets are identified, and potential revenue begins to take shape. However, activity is not the same as due diligence. Without proper review, valuation, approval, and financial controls, the museum may sell the wrong property, accept less than fair market value, overlook important restrictions, or create the appearance of preferential access.
For that reason, the chain of command should be established before any large sales effort begins. Once the collections review is complete, the Collections Director or other designated authority should submit the documented recommendation to executive leadership. This prevents sales staff, volunteers, consultants, or outside specialists from bypassing the process and seeking approval based primarily on buyer interest or anticipated revenue.
Executive leadership then considers whether the proposed transaction is consistent with institutional priorities and whether further financial, legal, contractual, insurance, or public-relations review is required. Leadership may approve a sale within delegated authority, but that approval should follow collections review rather than replace it. A chief executive should not be the only person deciding whether an object may be sold, what it is worth, who may purchase it, and how the proceeds will be used.
Accounting has a separate responsibility to confirm payment, track fees and net proceeds, and ensure that funds are assigned according to the status of the property. Collections and Accounting should be able to reconcile what was approved for sale with what was actually sold and how the revenue was handled.
No one position should control the entire process. Qualified collections staff provide the initial review, the designated collections authority makes the formal recommendation, executive leadership authorizes the transaction within policy, and Accounting documents the financial result. Separation of responsibility protects the institution from decisions made too quickly or without the information needed to defend them later.
The Board Must Approve the Framework
The governing authority for museum asset sales should begin with the institution’s approved collections policies. A Collections Management Policy typically establishes responsibility for accessioning, deaccessioning, disposition, use of proceeds, documentation, and professional standards. A Collection Development Plan may further define what the museum collects, what it should retain, where duplication exists, and when material no longer supports the institution’s mission.
These governing documents should be reviewed and approved by the board because they establish the authority under which the museum cares for and makes decisions about its collections. Related policies addressing ethics, conflicts of interest, financial controls, and delegated authority should support that framework. Together, they define who may recommend action, who may approve it, and what standards must be followed when property leaves museum control.
Broad policy language, however, is not always enough to guide an actual sales effort. A policy may state that deaccessioned objects can be sold or that surplus property may be disposed of, but it may not explain how staff should proceed when ownership is unclear, donor records are incomplete, several departments claim an operational need, a buyer approaches the museum directly, or an object contains hazardous materials.
Detailed asset-sales and responsible-disposition guidelines should therefore be developed beneath the approved policy framework. These guidelines do not replace the Collections Management Policy or Collection Development Plan. They explain how those governing documents apply in practice and provide a consistent process for the circumstances staff, leadership, Accounting, volunteers, and outside specialists may encounter.
The guidelines should carry the process from initial identification through review, valuation, approval, marketing, payment, removal, proceeds allocation, and permanent documentation. They should account for the different types of property museums hold, the sales methods available, and circumstances requiring additional controls, including uncertain ownership, insider interest, hazardous materials, unusual transportation needs, related groups of assets, or high-value property.
Developing these procedures in advance prevents the institution from inventing a process after an object has already been advertised or promised. It reduces reliance on verbal instructions, personal judgment, and decisions shaped by immediate buyer interest. Staff should not have to determine authority, review requirements, or conflict protections after a transaction is already underway.
The board should approve the governing collections policies and understand the supporting sales guidelines used to implement them. Formal board approval of the guidelines may also be appropriate when they establish financial thresholds, delegated authority, board-reporting requirements, or controls for major asset-sale initiatives.
The board must also be informed when the museum is planning a significant sales or fundraising effort. A broad initiative involving important institutional property should not be developed solely within executive operations and presented to trustees only after objects have been advertised or transactions have begun. The board should understand the purpose, scale, risks, approval structure, and intended use of proceeds before the museum commits itself publicly.
Many museums establish a dollar threshold above which formal board authorization is required. That threshold is important, but it should not define the full extent of board involvement. A coordinated sales effort may carry substantial institutional consequences even when each item falls below the approval amount. Related property should not be separated into smaller lots, phases, or transactions to avoid board review.
Not every routine sale requires a board vote. Duplicate books, donated-for-sale materials, and ordinary surplus property may proceed through delegated procedures when the governing policies and supporting guidelines clearly establish the process. Major, unusual, or publicly visible sales require closer oversight, regular reporting, and board awareness before the institution reaches a point that is difficult to reverse.
The board does not need to manage individual listings or replace professional staff. Its role is to approve the policies that establish authority, understand the guidelines used to carry them out, authorize transactions at the required level, and ensure that significant sales remain consistent with the museum’s mission, fiduciary obligations, and responsibility to the public.
Readiness Must Come Before Revenue
A museum should not begin with a buyer, a fundraising goal, or a list of objects someone believes are no longer needed. It should begin by understanding what it owns, how the property entered the institution, whether it remains useful, and who has authority to recommend and approve its disposition.
That review may take time, especially when donor files are incomplete, collections are poorly inventoried, or several departments hold different pieces of the object’s history. Delay in those circumstances is not administrative obstruction. It is the work required to prevent an irreversible mistake.
Once the institution has confirmed ownership, completed professional review, established authority, and applied its approved policies, it can begin considering how a sale should be conducted. That next stage presents its own risks involving conflicts of interest, hazardous materials, venue selection, buyer communication, and permanent documentation.
A museum that cannot explain why an object is eligible to leave its control is not yet ready to sell it.
About the Author
Katrina Pescador has worked in museums since 2000, with experience spanning collections stewardship, archives, exhibitions, restoration, institutional planning, policy development, and nonprofit leadership. Her background also includes more than three decades in sales, much of it concurrent with her museum career, including many years operating an online store. That work gave her direct experience with pricing, product research, market presentation, customer communication, shipping, and online sales. She has also served on the boards of several nonprofit organizations. This article draws from her combined experience in museum practice, governance, and sales, as well as her research into professional standards and public cases and her recent development of comprehensive guidelines for museum asset sales and responsible disposition.
Sources and Further Reading
Professional Standards and Guidance
American Alliance of Museums. “Direct Care of Collections: Ethics, Guidelines, and Recommendations.” Updated 2019.
American Alliance of Museums. “Task Force on Direct Care.”
International Council of Museums. “Guidelines on Deaccessioning of the International Council of Museums.”
Cardozo Law Review. “From Museum to the Auction Block: Regulating the Deaccessioning of Art.”
Cases Discussed
Le Monde. “In China, a Ming Dynasty Painting Donated to a Major Museum Resurfaces at Auction.” January 1, 2026.
The New Yorker. “The Lost Masterpieces of Norman Rockwell Country.” October 4, 2017.
Originally published on LinkedIn on July 17, 2026. Read the original article on LinkedIn.
Related insights: A Museum Sale Is More Than a Transaction · “Maybe Next Year” Is Not a Preservation Plan
