A museum can make the right decision to sell an object and still handle the sale badly.
Determining that property is eligible for sale, confirming ownership, completing the necessary review, and obtaining proper approval are only the first steps. Once that decision has been made, a different set of responsibilities begins. The museum must decide who can participate in the sale, how the property will be valued and presented, where it should be offered, what risks or limitations must be disclosed, and what records must remain after the transaction is complete.
These details matter because a fully authorized sale can still create legal, financial, ethical, or reputational problems. Preferential access can create conflicts of interest. Hidden hazards can create liability. The wrong sales venue can reduce both value and public benefit. Weak descriptions or contracts can expose the institution after the property has left its control.
The second stage of a museum sale is therefore not simply about finding a buyer. It is about conducting the transaction in a way the institution can defend long after the sale is over.
Conflict of Interest Includes Access and Opportunity
Museum sales create opportunities for both actual and perceived conflicts of interest. A person helping to sort objects may collect the same type of material. A volunteer assisting with prices may know dealers who would appreciate advance notice. A staff member may want to purchase an item before it is publicly listed, while a board member may believe a friend or supporter would provide it with a good home.
None of these situations automatically proves dishonest intent. They do, however, create conditions in which the museum’s decisions may appear unfair or personally influenced. An individual should not be allowed to select an object for sale, determine its value, control access to it, and then purchase it or direct it toward someone they know.
The allegations involving the British Museum provide a far more serious example of what can happen when access, documentation, and oversight fail. In 2024, the museum brought a civil case against former curator Peter Higgs, alleging that he had taken more than 1,800 objects, manipulated records, used false identities, and offered items for sale online below their value. Higgs has denied the allegations, and the case should not be described as an authorized deaccession or museum sale. Its relevance lies in what it revealed about access control, incomplete cataloging, ignored warnings, and the difficulty of recovering objects after they enter the market.
The case demonstrates why an institution cannot rely only on personal trust or professional seniority. Strong controls protect the museum as well as the people working within it. No one person should have the unchecked ability to identify, value, document, remove, and communicate with buyers about museum property.
Conflicts are not limited to theft or direct financial profit. Preferential access, discounted purchases, favors to collectors, informal promises, future business relationships, and improved standing within a professional or hobby network may also provide personal benefit. Anyone involved in a sale should disclose interests or relationships that could influence, or appear to influence, the process.
The clearest safeguard is often to prevent people who helped select, price, or organize a sale from purchasing within that same category. Museums should also avoid setting objects aside privately, notifying favored buyers before public release, or negotiating discounts outside the approved process. Public competition, independent valuation, and documented market exposure provide stronger evidence that the opportunity was handled fairly.
Private sales may still be appropriate when an object has a limited pool of qualified buyers, presents unusual transportation problems, or would be best placed with another public or nonprofit institution. In those cases, the museum should document why the method was selected, how the value was established, and whether any relationships with the buyer were disclosed.
Hazardous Materials and Liability Must Be Considered Before Listing
Some museum property carries risks that are not visible in its appearance or reflected in its market value. Historic instruments, aircraft components, scientific equipment, vehicles, machinery, taxidermy specimens, batteries, fuels, asbestos-containing materials, mercury devices, chemicals, and treated objects may present hazards that affect whether they can be sold, how they must be handled, and who may legally transport or receive them.
When the Delbridge Museum of Natural History in Sioux Falls closed its long-running taxidermy exhibit, the city had to address chemical treatments used on older specimens, along with restrictions involving endangered and protected species. The collection could not simply be sold, transferred, or discarded as ordinary surplus. Its future required attention to public safety, regulatory requirements, donor history, and responsible handling.
Older aviation, military, maritime, and scientific instruments may contain radium paint applied to dials and markings so they could be read in darkness. An intact instrument may appear stable, but damaged paint can flake and release radioactive particles that may be inhaled or ingested. Museums should not dismantle, clean, scrape, repair, or casually package suspected radium devices without appropriate testing and professional guidance.
Radiation readings should be documented before a suspected device is offered for sale or transfer. The museum must determine whether the object may legally be shipped, whether specialized packaging or labeling is required, and whether the proposed carrier will accept it. Radioactive materials are subject to federal transportation requirements, and some devices cannot be sent through ordinary mail or shipped by standard methods once activity levels or packaging requirements exceed allowable limits.
A museum cannot rely on an online platform, shipping counter, or buyer to determine whether a radium device is safe or legal to transport. Before listing it, the institution should know how it can be transferred, what the process will cost, whether the buyer is qualified to receive it, and whether radiation authorities must be consulted.
The buyer must also receive clear information about known or suspected hazards. Descriptions should not minimize radioactive paint, asbestos, mercury, lead, chemical treatments, residual fuel, compressed gas, deteriorated batteries, explosives, ammunition, pyrotechnic components, or other regulated materials. These substances may appear stable until an object is broken, dismantled, restored, transported, or discarded.
Asbestos may be present in older insulation, brake linings, gaskets, fireproofing, electrical components, engine compartments, and aircraft or vehicle parts. Mercury may be found in switches, gauges, thermometers, barometers, relays, laboratory equipment, and scientific instruments. Their presence may affect how an object is handled, transported, repaired, transferred, or disposed of.
Disclosure protects the buyer and allows the museum to determine whether specialized removal, packaging, transportation, or disposal is required before the property is offered for sale. Disclosure alone, however, may not be enough. Some property may require transfer to a licensed recipient, specialized carrier, hazardous-material contractor, government agency, or qualified disposal facility. Responsible disposition may cost more than the item is worth, but low market value does not remove the obligation.
Vehicles, aircraft, engines, machines, and restoration equipment create another set of concerns. A museum may sell an aircraft only for static display, restoration, or parts, but a buyer may later attempt to return it to operation. A vehicle that has been stationary for years may contain degraded brakes, fuel systems, tires, wiring, or structural components. Machinery may lack guards, contain outdated electrical systems, or have been modified during decades of institutional use.
The museum should avoid making claims about airworthiness, roadworthiness, operational condition, completeness, or future usability unless those claims have been professionally verified. Sales materials and agreements should describe the known condition accurately and identify the intended status of the property. An aircraft sold as a non-flying display or restoration project should not be advertised in language suggesting that it can easily be returned to flight.
“As-is, where-is” language can be useful, but it should not substitute for disclosure or legal review. A written agreement may also need to address inspection, title, included components, warranties, insurance, transportation, removal deadlines, assumption of risk, and responsibility for future repair, certification, registration, or operation.
Removal from museum property introduces additional liability. Large objects may require cranes, forklifts, rigging, disassembly, hazardous-material handling, or oversized transportation. The museum should determine who will supervise the work, whether the buyer or contractor has suitable insurance, and who is responsible if the building, collection, staff, visitors, or property are damaged during removal.
Payment should clear and required agreements, insurance documents, permits, and transportation arrangements should be complete before the item is released. The museum should also identify any hazardous residue, leaking fluids, unstable components, contaminated surfaces, or regulated materials that could affect the removal process.
A buyer may rely on the museum’s reputation and assume that an object has been authenticated, inspected, conserved, or determined safe. The institution should therefore distinguish between what it knows, what its records suggest, and what has not been verified. Testing, specialized packing, regulatory consultation, transportation, insurance, legal review, and responsible removal should be considered during valuation and venue selection rather than discovered after a buyer has committed.
These concerns may determine whether an item can be listed at all and which buyers, carriers, or sales methods are appropriate. Once the museum understands the risks and transfer requirements, it can select a venue suited to both the material and the institution’s responsibilities.
The Sales Venue Should Match the Material
Museums may have several possible sales channels, but the most convenient one is not necessarily the most responsible. Common duplicate publications and inexpensive donated-for-sale materials may be suitable for a museum shop or public event. Specialized books, memorabilia, models, or collectibles may perform better through an established online marketplace.
Rare, unusual, or high-value property may require a specialist auction house, broker, dealer, or independent appraisal. Historic vehicles, aircraft, engines, machinery, and major equipment may also involve title research, transportation planning, contracts, safety disclosures, and specialized buyers. They should not be handled as though they are simply larger versions of gift-shop inventory.
The San Diego Natural History Museum confronted the implications of venue selection in 2013 when it planned to sell 12 fossils through Bonhams. The specimens reportedly included large vertebrate fossils collected by Charles Sternberg during the 1920s. The museum explained that the fossils fell outside its regional collecting mission and that the purpose was not simply to generate income. After scientists raised concerns about the possible loss of research and public access if the specimens entered private ownership, the museum withdrew them from auction and reconsidered other options.
The decision illustrates an important distinction. An object may be outside a museum’s collecting mission and still have considerable scientific or educational value. An open auction may establish a price, but it does not guarantee that the material will remain available for research, education, or public display. In some cases, transfer to another museum, university, public agency, or nonprofit institution may better serve the public interest, even when it produces less revenue.
Auction houses can appear to offer an easy solution, particularly when museum staff lack the time or experience to manage a specialized sale. The institution delivers the object, the auction house prepares the listing, and the market determines the result. That process may be appropriate, but it should not be mistaken for a transfer of responsibility.
An auction house may understand its buyers without fully understanding the object. Its staff may overlook a technical feature, maker, serial number, provenance detail, associated document, or historical connection that would attract a more specialized audience. When the museum provides limited research and allows the auction house to develop the description independently, important information may be omitted or reduced to language that does not distinguish the property from similar material.
The museum should complete its own research, provide strong photographs and documentation, draft or closely review the description, and confirm that the item is placed in an appropriate category. Staff should monitor the listing after publication, respond to questions requiring institutional knowledge, and ensure that significant material is not combined with unrelated property in a way that reduces its visibility or value.
The auction house’s audience also affects the result. A general antiques auction may not reach aviation specialists, military vehicle collectors, rare-book buyers, scientific institutions, or others who understand the object’s significance. Material that performs poorly in the wrong auction may have earned considerably more through a specialist venue, broker, carefully managed online listing, or direct outreach to an appropriate professional audience.
The convenience of auction must therefore be weighed against commissions, seller fees, transportation, insurance, storage, and the possibility of a low return. A quick consignment requiring little staff involvement may produce only modest revenue. With additional research, a stronger description, better presentation, and placement before the right buyers, the same property may generate substantially more.
This does not mean museums should avoid auction houses. It means they should use them strategically. The auction house provides market access and sales expertise, while the museum retains responsibility for the object’s history, documentation, description, and public presentation. Stronger results are more likely when both forms of expertise are present.
Documentation Must Continue After the Sale
Approval does not complete the museum’s responsibility. A permanent record should allow future staff to reconstruct the transaction from the initial review through final removal. It should establish what was sold, why it was eligible, who approved the decision, how the value and sales method were determined, what the buyer paid, what fees were deducted, and how the proceeds were assigned. Supporting photographs, agreements, disclosures, advertisements, estimates, and significant communications should also be retained.
Museums must distinguish deaccessioning from disposition. Deaccessioning is the formal decision to remove an object from the permanent collection. Disposition is the action that follows, which may include sale, transfer, exchange, donation, destruction, or another approved method. An object is not deaccessioned simply because someone considers it unwanted or a buyer has expressed interest.
The source and status of the property also affect how proceeds may be used. Revenue from donated-for-sale material, ordinary surplus assets, and deaccessioned collection objects may be subject to different requirements. Money received from a deaccessioned object should not be placed into general revenue without reference to the museum’s collections policy, donor documentation, accounting procedures, and professional standards.
The Museum of the Bible provides a broader example of how weak documentation can damage institutional credibility. Questions involving provenance, authenticity, and legal title led to the return of thousands of objects and the discovery that fragments once promoted as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls were modern forgeries. A museum cannot assume that possession, purchase, or donor assurances are enough. It must be able to show where an object came from, why it had authority to acquire or release it, and what evidence supported the decision.
These documentation requirements apply to all museum property, but permanent collection objects carry additional professional restrictions. American Alliance of Museums guidance emphasizes that potential monetary value should not determine whether an object is deaccessioned. The museum must first establish that no legal restrictions prevent the action, follow its approved policies and field-wide standards, and document the decision.
When proceeds are used for direct care of collections, the institution should define what direct care means, establish who may authorize that use, and maintain the money in a segregated or otherwise identifiable account.
Records may need to answer questions many years after the transaction, when the employees involved are no longer present. A future director, donor family member, auditor, researcher, or journalist should not have to reconstruct the sale from incomplete spreadsheets, scattered emails, or individual memory.
A Responsible Sale Should Withstand Later Scrutiny
Museum sales can be appropriate and beneficial. They can reduce unnecessary accumulation, improve storage, place useful property with new owners, and generate revenue consistent with institutional policy and mission. Those benefits depend on the museum doing the difficult work before and throughout the transaction.
The standard should not be whether a sale was completed quickly or produced immediate revenue. It should be whether the institution can later explain why the property was sold, who had authority to approve it, how its value was established, why the sales venue was selected, whether the process was fair, what the buyer was told, and how the proceeds were used.
A responsible sale does not end when the museum accepts payment. It ends when the property has been legally transferred, safely removed, accurately documented, and placed with a buyer who understands the condition, hazards, and responsibilities that accompany it.
These requirements do not prevent responsible sales. They allow museums to pursue them without losing sight of why their assets, records, and decisions are held to a higher standard. When those questions remain unanswered, the museum is not ready to complete the sale.
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.”
Cases Discussed
Associated Press. “The British Museum Is Suing a Former Curator It Says Stole 1,800 Items and Tried to Sell Them.” March 26, 2024.
Associated Press. “Natural History Museum Closes Because of Chemicals in Taxidermy Collection.” August 18, 2023.
City of Sioux Falls and Delbridge Museum of Natural History. “Taxidermy Survey.” July 9, 2024.
Museum of the Bible. “Museum of the Bible Releases Research Findings on Fragments in Its Dead Sea Scrolls Collection.” October 22, 2018.
Museum of the Bible. “Investigating the Recent Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments.”
National Geographic. “‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ at the Museum of the Bible Are All Forgeries.” March 13, 2020.
San Diego Natural History Museum. “Fossils Withdrawn from Auction.” 2013.
Originally published on LinkedIn on July 25, 2026. Read the original article on LinkedIn.
Related insight: Museums Cannot Afford to Sell Carelessly
