Jestyr wrote:Further, I would encourage you to reevaluate your concept of indulgence, as I think it is a bit insulting.
Oxford English Dictionary -
indulge... 1 allow oneself to enjoy the pleasure of. 2 satisfy or yield freely to (a desire or interest).
I think I know what the word means, and my use of it is acceptable by definition and free of presumption. These bidders were indulging themselves in taking the bid so far, and after the officials from the museums and such had dropped out of their bidding, any of them would have been happy to have owned it for much less. Their access to extravagant funds made it possible for them to continue playing the bid-war.
Officials from a nationally represented museum were bidding on this piece to obtain it for the satisfaction of maintaining, researching and sharing its cultural significance with the world in a public museum. There is little I would consider
indulgent about their attempt to secure the helmet for their organization, beyond perhaps the pride they would gain from being able to maintain such a piece of history... On the other hand, when private bidders are not only aware of such a noble public cause (one group donated nearly a million pounds to the operation, and many private donors stepped up to the plate with proud financial gestures on behalf of the museum) but also out-strip their possible bid and continue to haggle between each other at great financial loss to obtain the helmet for a private venue, I think it's not only indulgent, but disrespectful to the community.
This is not a Ferrari, or a Master Knuut hauberk, or any other sort of produced toy that one can place value on based on its apparent worth to the individual. Alas, it is a piece of British national treasure that has been lost to a private collector's pocketbook. It is essentially invaluable, and for that reason private collectors making a bid on it in the face of a national effort to safeguard it is indulgent in my eyes... No matter what the amount of money is. If the treasure laws in England were set straight, it should have sold to Tullie House for whatever their offer was, and it would have been far less than $3.7 million. If that had transaction taken place, everyone involved probably would have been satisfied with its realization, and deemed it a respectable and worthy price as well.
The bottom line is that rich private bidders do
not have the same concept of value as the professionals in the field, and just because they have access to funds to purchase historic artifacts for sums of money that are out-of-the-question for museums to compete with, does not mean that such sums are a reasonable monetary price for said items. I'm sure that if Tullie House had $3.7 million dollars at its disposal, it would have loved to have purchased the helmet... But I'm also sure that a number of people there probably would have shook their heads realizing that kind of money could be used elsewhere in their departments, etc, etc. The conception of value lies with the individual only insofar as it is deemed a respectable quantity by the public, in my opinion. Can this private phone bidder justify spending nearly four million US dollars on a historic helmet that he/she is most likely going to hide from the world in the face of a public enterprise's attempt to procure it for much less? I doubt it.
-Gerhard
