What future do you all want for the recovered 6000 Titanic artifacts


Feb 14, 2011
2,447
32
123
Whether you are for or against recovery of artifacts from the Titanic wreck- what do you all hope becomes of the 6000 artifacts already recovered by RMS Titanic Inc? Some artifacts still await conservation, presumably sitting in crates, as the litigation drags on...

With a madman at the helm in RMS Titanic Inc, and the stock value in the crapper, I'm not sure the company can survive from the seemingly endelss series of self inflicted injuries. I want to see the artifacts stay in one collection, in a museum forum, and not be broken up and sold off, as the currrent company Prez has voiced interest in doing...

Before the takeover, I think the initial plan was to form a "Home base" for the artifacts, where conservation could occour, and visitors could view the larger and centerpiece artifacts. Perhaps smaller touring satelite exhibits could have generated the revenue to fund future explorations.

I have to wonder what explorations and discoveries could have transpired had the takeover never happened.

If the current Big Whigs at RMSTI have thier way, the artifacts will be put on auction, and all the hard work done on past expeditions will have been for nothing.

Its a bit of a no win scenario though- even if the Hooligans are ousted and the artifacts go to one museum, wouldnt that still result in the end of RMSTI, and the salvage claim would thus be up for grabs?

What would then prevent Mr G. from returning to the wreck with a different company?

I want to see more expeditions like the Cameron expedition, that filmed the interior of the wreck, and a return of the public dives, as I feel everyone here has the right to see the grand old lady in her natural environment......

And with 6000 artifacts up, thats more than enough- the only treasure left to take is FILM of the interior, before the ship caves in on itself....

I just hope the 6000 ietms already up are put in a proper museum, and are spared the rigors of on the road travel..

regards

Tarn Stephanos
 
S

sue cooper

Guest
We have photos of these artifacts to look at so now return them to the wreck and let them rest where she rests.


Sue
 
Feb 14, 2011
2,447
32
123
Hi Sue
A picture does not have the same impact or value as an actual artifact. Returing all the Titanic artifacts to the sea floor would be akin to reburying all the Egyptian artifats, and suggesting photos of the same should be just as good....Artifacts that are up are up- no ship will head out to sea to hurl those things overboard...


regards

Tarn Stephanos
 
S

sue cooper

Guest
Hello Tarn,

I understand that. I can't really see anyone returning them to the deep. That is just what I would like to see happen not what I expect to happen. I am one of the folks who believe that the artifacts should not have been removed from the seabed in the first place. Since they have then it is too much to hope that they will ever be returned.
What would you like to see done with them, Tarn? Failing their return to the deep I should like to see a static display somewhere. Maybe Southhampton. If these artifacts could all be kept together in one place, a Titanic museum, then I feel that would be a better way to honour the dead than selling off these items.

Warmest regards,
Sue
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
693
483
Easley South Carolina
The question of the ethics of salvage aside, I think we can be 99.99999999999999999 99% certain that the artifacts will not be returned to the Titanic's grave. In light of that, I think that RMSTI should actually hold to the original vision that they sold to the public which is to actually build that museum. That way, the artifacts can receive the proper care that respect to the Titanic's memory demands.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
May 5, 2001
406
5
171
Hi All,

Here is what I would do with these Artifacts...

#1. Take EVERY piece recovered from the Titanic Wreck Site and build a museum in a place suitable, for instance, Southampton, which puts The United States out in the cold as far as accessibility goes..

#2.THEN for those who wish an artifact, EXACT reproductions could be made of these things and be sold off that way. It would probably be more cost effective to do it this way anyway since most of these artifacts are worth thousands of dollars......it may not be the real McCoy but if it's done right, it will still give the owner a feeling they have something from The Titanic.

Regards,
Bill
 
Feb 14, 2011
2,447
32
123
Hi Sue!

I'm hoping a permanent museum home will be found for the 6000 Titanic artifacts, as having them on perpetual tour, with no plan or forsight, will only continue to wear and tear on the artifacts.

There needs to be a permanent TEAM of conservators, well trained in artifact conservation, to work on the pieces brought up.....

Id love to see the artifacts housed in one museum,where the public can view the artifacts, and witness conservation as it occours. Perhaps classes on Titanic history could be taught at such a museum, and a central archive could contain footage from past dives, which could be viewed by any visitor of the museum.

I hope future expeditions will focus mainly on filming the interior. The James Cameron expedition, was without doubt the most important expedition since the discovery of the wreck in 1985. The importance of the footage taken within, and his sharing what was seen with the Titanic community cannot be understated..

And I strongly believe the public dives to the wreck should return-once the technology and funding is there.. We all have a right to see the wreck in person, to pay our respects, then leave. There is room for both the 'experts' and the armchair historians. To suggest only the "important" people should ever be able to dive Titanic is blatant arrogance. So long as they look, but dont touch, tourist dives are a great thing......

The mass accesability of this technology is coming.

But i sense the court litigation with RMS Titanic Inc will drag on for years, and the artifacts will suffer as a consequence.....

But I hope not- If Gellar is ousted, Im hoping sensible minds return, the exhibits will stop, and the artifacts put in one museum forum....

Of course the one perplexing hurdle is that RMSTI shareholders want some sort of return, or value for their stock, and static museum exhibits are not money makers, So perhaps having the artifacts on tour is the only way for profit, and funding for expeditions can be generated; but that will continue to wear and tear on the artifacts.
Its a bit of a catch 22...

Ohn well, we'll know the fate of the artifacts soon enough

The idea of selling artifact reproductions is a great idea, and one of two pieces were duplicated, and the repros sold in the Titanic exhibition gift shops. But the gift shop at the Titanic exhibits were run by a seperate retail company, and they determined and chose their inventory, which was, by and large, absolute trash....(unless you like Titanic candy)


Hopefully if there is ever a Titanic artifact museum, the quality of merchandise in the gift shop will improve with leaps and bounds.

The artifacts that have been recovered are very special links with that tragedy that occoured in 1912, and those who have seen the artifacts up close are often touched to the point of tears-

To have the artifacts touring around indefinatly is simply undignified..

regards


Tarn Stephanos
 
S

sue cooper

Guest
Hi Tarn,
Here, here. I agree with every word you said in that excellent post.

I too would like to see more photos of the interior of the wreck. Any photos at all would be great! There has been a distinct lack of pictures coming out from the site which I find worrying.

"And I strongly believe the public dives to the wreck should return-once the technology and funding is there.. We all have a right to see the wreck in person, to pay our respects, then leave"
Absolutely right, Tarn. I believe that everyone who want to visit the site should be able to. It is indeed a way of not only seeing the wreck for ourselves but a way of paying our respects. Why should this be reserved for a favoured few?

Your words said all that I personally feel about this subject, Tarn. Thank you for putting it so well.

Warmest regards,
Sue
 

Connie Hedges

Member
Apr 14, 2002
37
1
146
I think the items should be kept together in a museum. Regarding the selling of such things: wouldn't the relatives of the owners of any surviving artifacts have the right to them instead of some company that just wants to sell them for a profit?
If they are not to be kept together in a museum, every effort should be made to give them to the descendants or family of any known owners.
 
May 8, 2001
1,359
13
221
My .02... If the croud would support it, (With LAX, Disnyland, Knotts Berry Farm and the beach right there it should) it would be awesome to see the artifacts placed on the Queen Mary where the Cousteau exhibit was supposed to be housed. It would be so much more respectable than the "Ghosts and Legends" tour, or the "Haunted House" they do now. They did have an exhibit of artifacts there in 1998, but it was such a small one it didn't really give you much of a feel. I seem to recall most everything was enclosed in a big glass cube, filled with water. The theater presentation beforehand was a nice touch.
That is just my opinion though. I just hope the 6000 that are up now will be cared for in a manner that will ensure that the future generations will be able to see it too. (Afterall, that was one of their original purposes.)
 
Feb 14, 2011
2,447
32
123
Hi Sue!
Thanks for the nice comments. 8 )

I think the Cameron expedition, really raised the bar, in that future expeditions to Titanic, to be taken seriously at all, must follow his example of filming the wreck, inside and out, and make their findings available to the public. Enough artifacts have been brough up, but one can never bring up enough footage taken of the interior of the wreck...

There are some who are very much opposed to the notion public visits to the wreck- . I think the angst was not so much that the tourist dives to Titanic were happening, but rather that it was a company other than RMSTI that was doing them. So RMS sued, and tried to block the tourist dives, and even claimed to have a 'visual copyright' on the wreck. Ridiculous,i admit, and the court thought so too.

But i understand the arguments againts tourist dives when its in reference to damage caused by subs landing on the decks,which seemed to be conciderable, but damage was also done by expeditions recovering artifacts, particulary in the last expedition....

Tourists dives that exercise caution,take nothing, follow a certain 'flight plan', should be right as rain......

Its just I dont think the deep sea should be the arena of only a select few- I think everyone has the right to dive on the Titanic, if they only want to look at her remains. But those who want to rip her apart, well, they are not welcome...

I suspect if I have kids, their genteration will have easy access to visit the deep sea vents, the deep sea creatures,the deep sea shipwrecks, or visit deep sea active volcanoes..

Many marine geologists,marine biologists and marine archaologists want to keep the deep sea only for those in their respective fields.

Now im opposed to every Tom Dick and Harry visiting the wreck to recover artifacts of their own- Im just voicing support of visitors who simply drive by,pay respects, and keep on going........

Ive met a few WW2 buffs who hope one day they will have a chance to visit the wrecks of the Yorktown, or the Bismark, and pay respects. Whats wrong with that?


This way, Titanic would indeed be an undersea museum, and if the public could visit her via a submersible, there would be no more need to recover artifacts.

The artifacts on display bring Titanic to the visitor of any given Titanic exhibit- but if you could be brought to the Titanic, the same artifacts left strewn on the sea floor might have even greater emotional impact.


A Titanic museum would be a great thing, and as nice as Belfast sounds, there really isnt any money in Belfast, so how could such a museum stay afloat? (pardon the pun).

Id hope Southampton, or NYC would be the site of a future Titanic museum..


regards

Tarn Stephanos
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
283
12
183
Tarn, the original order of the court did grant RMST exclusive video and photographic rights. In the Haver case (the appeal of that portion of the findings) the appellate court did not agree with the original order, and the tourist dives went ahead full steam.

RMST challenged to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court would not hear it.

You all are missing an obvious reason why RMST wanted those rights. Yes, they wanted the video and photo rights, but more importantly, they wanted the accessibility to the ship limited.

There are claims going around of all sorts of damage done by RMSTI at the wreck site, from attempting to cut away the telemotor to pulling down the exterior walls of Captain Smith's cabin to other claims. With tourist dives, who can say that RMST has done all those things? One thing is for sure, only Nautile and the MIRs have been down, and the pilots of those vehicles know for sure.

Also, artifacts are missing from the ocean floor. Do you remember the statue photographed by Ballard (the Artemis, I believe)? It has never been seen or heard from in the years past. Who took it? What ELSE did they take?

And, allow me to interject my thoughts on the disposition of the artifacts recovered so far.

I agree with a permanent home, with small traveling exhibitions going worldwide. Whoever is in charge will owe this to the world's interested parties. I do not see Belfast as a practical location of this home. While a strong sympathetic choice, the economy of that area is not a strong one that will bring in sufficient dollars to maintain the collection. Should they have artifacts to exhibit? Definitely, but not practical as the permanent home.

Just my two cents.
 
Feb 14, 2011
2,447
32
123
Hi Bill!
Hope all is well! As a Civil War buff, I hope you caught the new Ulysses Grant special that's been on..Very interesting!

I totally understand RMST's wanting to block any other salvage firms from recovering artifacts, and well they should have, but i dont agree with thier desire to block of the tourist dives. I agree with the opinion of the appellate court that allowed the tourist dives to continue. But as it stands today, methinks the tours are on hold for lack of interest or money.

If the subs simply do a flyover, dont land on the ship, recover nothing, whats wrong with that? Im pro relic recover,(though enough has been brought up) 100% pro George, but differ in opinion on the tourist dive issue...
Even if the wreck is declared private property, there is nothing wrong with people simply passing by to look at the great ship.Just my opinion. By making that illiegal, such would be akin to a homeowner charging passing moterists with tresspassing..It just seems petty...

There really is no way to determine if the Mir debris found on the wreck was from the tourist dives , the first Cameron expedition (when footage was taken for the movie), or the 2000 expedition. (as the Mirs were used in both instances) But without doubt, some of those Mir pilots were very cocky, and should have demonstarted restraint. The one that tried to take one of the Mirs into the opening above the grand staircase must have been insane.

I dont foresee ther tourist dives on Titanic becoming readly accessable for the public for over a decade, but I hope the day comes.

Even Dr Ballard indicated he wished the general public could one day be able to view the Titanic wreck in her natural environment...

Good question about some of the missing artifacts- no idea what happened- Perhaps the shifting sediments buried some things, or perhaps some items were recovered and never properly documented. Who knows....

All those aft grand staircase baulestrades photographed by Ballrd's team have all but vanished. I doubt they were recovered, but rather were likly buried- There seems to be a strong current down there, that often hampered attempts to film the broken end of the bow section, so mabey that current buried some artifacts too...

I really hope the permanant museum becomes a reality- just think of it- these 6000 links with history given a permanant home, a place where conservation could occour onsite, a video archive contains all footage from past dives, and there could be Titanic classes, and lectures from guest speakers...

Belfast is a beautiful city, but there isnt much money there- so i dont see how a museum could thrive there- it would have to be in a hopping tourist city- like New York.....


I hope it will happen....

warm regards

Tarn Stephanos
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
16
221
Hello Bill:

Thank you for your input in regards to submersible activity at the TITANIC wreck site.
I find it thoughtless how so many are eager to point their finger at the French, while on the other hand the "tell-tale" traces of MIR activity at the site speak for themselves.

As you are aware a temporary retraining order supported with physical evidence recovered by the French submersible NAUTILE acted as a precept for an all together ban of future expeditions by the Russians to the TITANIC wreck site. However, this was not to be the case.

What I find interesting is that how willing, on behalf of George Tulloch, that the French were to share the phenomenal images that were captured by NAUTILE's cameras. Yet, of the many Russian expeditions to the site how little of those MIR video images have been publically released.

I am certain that the agressive nature of the MIR submersible pilots rests with the fact that not far off...the "twin" lurks in the gloom. Time and time again P.H. Nargeolet could be seen implying the necessity of *safety first*, as in obliging Tulloch's request to send ROBIN deep inside the wreck.

Perhaps the ARTEMIS statue of your previous mention has settled deeper into it's furrow. In other words, the span of 17 years may have created furthur sediment enclosure, secluding it from the limited site of a deep-submersible viewport. What of the ceramic doll face which gave Dr. Ballard a startle?

Recall that only one of the "little cherub's" feet were exposed from the bottom sediment, thus enabling it's recovery...

...and how fortunate that we are to behold the sorrow that it will forever represent.

(BTW: I too am a great admirer of the courageous Mr. Grant...his portrait attires a wall in my house aside MacArthur, Patton, Ike, and others.)

G'Night,

Michael Cundiff
U.S.A.
 

Bill Willard

Member
Mar 24, 2001
283
12
183
Tarn, your drive by motorist analogy doesn't quite fit. No one can just 'drive by' Titanic. If photographic rights are entitled at the wreck, then they should be allowed at the exhibitions as well.

I understand your view about the tourist dives and have no problem with tourist dives if a guarantee could be produced to ensure fly-by observing only. That cannot be guaranteed or achieved. The Russians have landed (based on evidence I've obtained) and have violated the no-touch rule placed in the decision granting rights to dive.

It's like saying Tarn that you can drive your car through this parking lot, but you can't stop and touch the mailboxes, but you do it anyway because you know no one is there to stop you, plus it makes your customers in your car VERY happy to be doing things they weren't supposed to be able to do.

There are tourist dives at Bismarck this summer instead of Titanic. I presume the dives there will be popular for a year or two, then back to Titanic.

I don't think the Artemis has disappeared beneath the sediment. The cherub mentioned was found after 75+ years lying there. The Artemis, based on the '85 picture was not covered. I don't see it being completely covered in just 17 years. It may have, though, and what a loss.
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
28
223
South Florida
Perhaps the reason the Russians aren't sharing info and photos is because their intelligence bought into the "Raise the Titanic" story that there's something "top secret" aboard her that they might want? That could explain some damage as well. (Maybe I've been watching too many spy pictures?)

Kyrila
 
May 5, 2001
406
5
171
Here is my slant on RMSTI's rights to the wreck:

The Titanic lies in 2 1/2 miles of water at the bottom of the Atlantic, what is RMSTI going to do to protect the wreck, post a guard at the site?

That's international waters and anyone who wants to risk it, should be allowed down to view and photograph the wreck if they so desire.

I dunno, it just seems to me that RMSTI is doing just the opposite of what they should be doing.

Bill, (I feel like I'm talking to myself
happy.gif
) I do wish I had the money to drive by the Titanic wreck because I would think it would be worth the risk and like I said "ANYONE" should be able to dive to her whenever they like...it's not like it's on anyone's property..

Regards,
Bill
 

Don Tweed

Member
Mar 30, 2006
590
12
111
I really hate the idea of profit being made of any kind off Titanic, 9/11, etc.
The artifacts should be kept together in a museum in Southampton.
This city suffered the greatest loss of life in the disaster and I beleive holds the most relatives of loved ones lost or saved.
In this way they would have the easiest access to view the artifacts, something I think they deserve.

Just my opinion, Don
 

Similar threads

Similar threads