All interesting opinions, but all devoid of reference to any actual standards, which in a museum setting should raise alarm bells when it comes to the treatment of an "artifact" - a status conceded by Ed. Is the concern that a WW&F Museum visitor might see the "Rutland" lettering on the lamp and become hopelessly confused, thus justifying what amounts to ruining the incongruous artifact in order to create a more satisfying fake? Or is the concern that someone might steal the lamp and try to sell it, in which case making an irreversible alteration to a supposedly-rare object to identify present ownership seems a fairly drastic conservation choice to inflict on an artifact....
Again, personal opinions are interesting, but what are the WW&F Museum's actual standards in such cases? Once could perhaps imagine a museum adhering to standards for the conservation of artifacts under which it's considered perfectly acceptable to destroy the integrity of one historic object in order to facilitate group make-believe that it's really something else, but wouldn't it be easier to simply admit that this is effectively what's being proposed? In which case - why is it acceptable to alter a Rutland lamp in this fashion, but not, say, an original SR&RL one?
