Protecting Cultural Objects

Results of the Survey of Condition Reporting Documentation
[ Previous | Next | Index ]

The section on Condition Reporting was completed by 69 of the 75 museums and galleries that responded (92 percent). It is important to point out that the results that follow represent only the findings of this survey and should not be equated with the core. The results will, however, be used in Phase Two of the project to inform specialist roundtable meetings at which the consensus for a proposed standard will be developed.


Date of Condition Report 100
Name of Person Completing the Report 99
Sixty-five percent of the organizations that record this information also record the person's position within the organization (e.g., curator, conservator).

Reason for Report 71

Condition/Examination History

A single-word descriptor (e.g., excellent, good, fair, bad). 71

Forty-six percent of the organizations that record this information employ controlled vocabulary.

As a free-text narrative. 97

Sixty-eight percent of the organizations that record this information also record any specific research or investigations (e.g., microscopic, chemical, etc.)

Conservation/Treatment History

Procedures or treatments which the object has undergone. 93

Need for Unique Descriptor Category for Physical Condition

Finally, the respondents were asked if they believed that a core standard should include a category or categories which recorded the physical condition of the object. Ninety-one percent thought that there should be such a category or categories:

Physical description of object only 17
Condition/Examination history only 5
Conservation treatment history only 3
Physical description of object and condition examination history 16
Physical description and conservation treatment history 19
Condition/examination history and conservation treatment history 3
All three categories 54

[ Previous | Next | Index ]