Las Vegas Exhibit


Status
Not open for further replies.

John Clifford

Member
Mar 30, 1997
1,693
26
323
58
Here is The Link:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-10-Thu-2005/news/26037782.html.

The Big Piece is now set to be on display at the Tropicana Hotel, in Las Vegas. Some 300 other artifacts will be on display, as well.

Too bad they couldn't have arranged for the piece to be on display at the Ballys Grand Hotel and Casino, where the nightly JUBILEE musical features the Titanic.

I will wager that two of my fellow Union Stewards, who will attend a May 2005 Stewards Training session, at the Flamingo Hilton, will comment about "I know John would go to see the Exhibit" (I passed on the "Lost Wages" Session, as I will be on a trip during that week). They knew I attended the 2000 Exhibit, over at the Rio.
 

Andrew Epps

Member
Feb 15, 2005
21
0
131
I am curious to know if the Las Vegas show (or any of the current exhibits) are much different than the ones that traveled during the late 90's. Would there for instance be much different about this show, than the one that was in Dallas in 2000. I am going to Vegas this week, and I am planning on seeing the exhibit over the weekend. But I am curious if the exhibits have changed much over the last few years.
 

Andrew Epps

Member
Feb 15, 2005
21
0
131
My wife and I just returned from Las Vegas yesterday where we toured the exhibit at the Tropicana. As I have read other viewers posts regarding the experience, I must agree, it is a very emotional experience and I too was not prepared for the emotional impact of the big piece. I must say that the exhibit was much more meaningful having absorbed the knowledge and the vast amount of information that is on this website from all of the different people here. Thank you all!

I really intended on being there Friday as it was the anniversary but unfortunately, we were not able to make it however, we were the first ones in the door saturday morning, My in-laws travelling as the Allisons, and My wife and I travelling as the Astors.
 
B

Brianne O'Brien

Guest
I just got back from visiting the exhibit. Even though it was my third trip to a Titanic exhibit... I ENJOYED IT so much! I was kinda upset that that cameras weren't allowed (I assumed no FLASHES would be allowed going in... but the man who worked at the entrance said it has to do with RMST's copyright law.)

If you have any questions, just leave a post!
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
35
243
South Florida
I've never understood that rule. Perhaps they fear that if photos are posted, nobody will come to the exhibit? I haven't seen any videos or books to accompany the tour since the first exhibit in Chicago.

Kyrila
 

Andrew Epps

Member
Feb 15, 2005
21
0
131
I was very disappointed in the fact that I could not take any pictures. Even though I left my camera, I was told that if anyone has any ideas about taking photos, that they are watching from the 'eye in the sky' The only thing that I wanted a picture of was me standing in front of the big piece.
 
B

Brianne O'Brien

Guest
Exactly! Living in So. California I visited the Getty Museum a couple months ago. I can understand that the flash on a camera could possibly warp a painting.. but even at the Getty Museum (where the art there dates back to over a thousand years ago, they allowed photography without flashes.) I think you're right Kyrila.. they probably don't want the public to be able to see it without paying admission.

HOWEVER, this rule did not go over well with me when it came to the big piece. The room that it was in was huge so I took out my cell phone and snapped a couple pictures. Since I was being so discreet they didn't turn out that great but at least you can see it.

P.S. I remember that this rule applied when I visted Hearst Castle in Northern California. Pictures were allowed but with no flash.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Hi Brianne,

Welcome aboard!

quote:

(I assumed no FLASHES would be allowed going in...but the man who worked at the entrance said it has to do with RMST's copyright law.)

That's interesting. I worked at an exhibit five and a half years ago and we didn't allow cameras to be used, for the reason that the artifacts would be damaged from the flash. I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned as well.​
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
35
243
South Florida
The one in Orlando is not run by RMSTI, and none of the items on display there will be affected by flash photography.

Of course, none of the items are from the bottom of the ocean. I have never heard about flash photography damaging the artifacts from the wrecksite, but it makes sense if you think about it. These items haven't seen the light of day for 90 years or so, and naturally light will be damaging in some cases. But I don't buy that for the none oceanographic parts of the exhibit.

Kyrila
 

Sean Hankins

Member
May 15, 2004
110
1
183
Working at the exhibit I found that the majority of people who want pictures want them in the recreated rooms not around the artifacts. The only exception that I've seen is the big piece.

I dont completely buy into that "the artifacts are gonna crumble if people take pictures of them" bit.

Reason: At our exhibit during "media day" there were media folks there with heavy duty cameras just flashin away at the artifacts. If it was such a big deal why allow that but not let John Doe take a picture with his kid on the GSC?

Im not even going to mention the photo shoot Dillards did in the GSC area where guests had to wait for them to finish. Very tacky.

Ive seen the big piece wheeled outside in broad daylight with no problems. It would take a lot of camera flashes to equal that. Maybe something might happen over a long period of time but I get the feeling its more what people here are saying about getting people to pay for tickets. I personally would want to see them for myself no matter what pictures ive seen.
 
B

Brianne O'Brien

Guest
Thanks for the welcome Jason!

Yeah... I could understand maybe 600 year old art (at the Getty Museum) but I think it's just RMST not wanting people to see the artifacts unless they pay for it.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
You're welcome, Brianne!

quote:

Yeah... I could understand maybe 600 year old art (at the Getty Museum) but I think it's just RMST not wanting people to see the artifacts unless they pay for it.

I agree, that could very well be the real reason. Since they are trying to get as many people as possible to attend the exhibitions, you can't really blame them.​
 
B

Brianne O'Brien

Guest
True true. But couldn't they at LEAST make the pictures on their site bigger?! Some of the artifacts in the pictures I would love to see up-close.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Yes, the photos should be larger and it's a pity you can't click on them. If you don't already own it, I would recommend getting the book Titanic, Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner by Susan Wels. It has some terrific photos of the artifacts and a good history of the ship as well. It often pops up on ebay for an affordable price.
 
B

Brianne O'Brien

Guest
No I don't own that book. Are the pictures in color? I checked out Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy from my library and the pictures are awesome (not the quality, but the amount.)
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
quote:

Are the pictures in color?

Yes, the photos are in colour.
happy.gif


Here's a link to one being auctioned on ebay right now for a bargain:

Titanic, Legacy of the World's Greatest Ocean Liner

The seller states that the artifacts are replicas, which is incorrect.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads