No specific credit for the AST photos. A note on the rear cover states, the major source of the photos is from the picture library of the Southern Daily Echo.

Thanks so much!

Chumpy, can i ask where they photo is from?

I was going to ask the same question. A very nice view of No. 302 Sqn’s WX-E in the foreground. In all probability ML124, damaged cat. B on 28 October 1944.

he refused to answer to a “Halt, who goes there”

So tragic. Why didn’t he just say “Mmeeee”?

Does anyone know if there are any Spitfire IXs still around that have the earlier small carb intake?

If we leave the flyers aside for a second, I believe the (very static) sole surviving Mk VII, in Washington DC, has the early stubby air intake as fitted to early Mk IXs and Mk VIIIs as well.

Leave the money aside for a moment.

I am afraid that’s undoable.

They were, I know this is a shock to some, not interested in financial value, but in educating the public about what they had, and in learning from these objects and owners about history.

I presume when you say “not interested” you mean that money was not the reason why they wanted to talk about these things. But I am sure they were interested in knowing the financial value as well.

I wouldn’t call the NASM ‘wealthy’.

I would. But this might be what I pointed to in my 200 vs 5 quid comparison.

Really? How so? I’d dispute that a ‘rich guy’ can be expected to adhere to the standards I’ve mentioned (he might choose to – or not. Most do not) while the national collection will do the best it can to provide proper stands as far as it can – with a public overview.

That’s a very optimistic point of view.

A private owner can tell you to take a hike.

I was told that at “national level” institutions many times.

A private owner might have a library and reference material – it won’t be properly catalogued (the Shuttleworth Collection are undertaking a major cataloguing exercise at the moment) wheras DoRiS at the RAFM is an international resource.

You are obviously very biased against private owners (do you know them all?) and towards state-run ones (how many have you visited?). I have been to national level state owned museums/archives/collections where MOST of the interesting stuff was not catalogued and people dealing with outside world (including researchers like me or you) were unfriendly, to put it mildly. A very respectable institution in UK denied having the memorabilia of a well known WWII pilot, despite the fact that I had a letter from the family telling me how and when they donated them. It took me 4 or 5 attempts before it was admitted that the papers were there. Some 10 years since the actual donation, but still not in the catalogue, which was why most of the clerical staff did not seem to know about it.

Should we, as you seem to be implying, auction off the collections of the world to the highest private bidder and trust them to look after our heritage?

Where exactly have I implied that? I just think that you grossly exagerrate the advantages of state-run collections and grossly underrate private collections. It is true that a private owner is always looking at the financial side of the things, which is a good enough reason to take proper care of whatever old objects they have, so that their value does not go down. People working in state owned museums are pretty often just state-employed clerks who don’t care much about anything, just have to come to their office 9 to 5. They are often not interested in the actual value of the objects, so they don’t mind if these deteriorate. Also, even if they are enthusiasts, and do all they can, they will often suffer from lack of cash and piles of silly paperwork.

Would it be fair to say that the essential question is:
“Should there to be an agreed definition of what distinguishes a restored original aircraft from a recreated replica aircraft and, if so, what should that definition be?”
…
To take an extreme example, if I should be offered an original restored SE5a, only to find that it comprised an original register plate and the remainder was a new construction from modern materials – which I would view as a recreated replica SE5a – I suspect that I would be off to my solicitor for advice concerning the financial loss I had suffered in consequence of the seller’s misrepresentation!

My understanding is that the answer to your essential question is “No”.
To take a less extreme example, if you should be offered a second hand car said to be “in good condition” you wouldn’t be looking for a generally agreed legal definition of what is a “second hand car in good condition”. You would have a good look at the car in question to find if – in your own personal opinion – it is worth the money you are willing to spend.

Sorry, you misunderstand me. History does not have a fixed financial value; or in a sense any financial value at all. However, people will pay more for something with a history – that adding a separate financial value to the concept of history. And these can be in conflict.

James, I do not quite understand, indeed.
First, of course nothing (history included) has any fixed financial value. Financial value of anything is subject to a deal between the seller and the buyer. A Spitfire photo I saw on ebay the other day is probably worth 5 quid for me, and that will be its financial value if I am the winning bidder. But the value might jump to 200 quid if somebody else bids. And it might even be that the 200 quid are in fact worth less to that person than the 5 quid for me! (See, I still remember what you told me about plural of ‘quid’ being ‘quid’.)
Second, I see what you mean about history as such not having a financial value, but I disagree. You might say that delicious taste of a meal does not have a fixed financial value; or in a sense any financial value at all. However, people will pay more for a meal with a delicious taste – that adding a separate financial value to the concept of a meal. This is just a rather frequent case of something that cannot be sold separately (taste, historic aspect) but it has a financial value as long as people are willing to pay for it. The fact that it can only be sold with something else (history with a Sp… oops, with an old aeroplane; good taste with a steak) does not alter that. If I like your article in a magazine, I still have to buy the whole copy of that issue, not just your text. Does it mean your article has no financial value?

At a museum I worked at, we had a ‘finds’ day, where museum experts would analyse objects brought in by the public. Generally they would be able to provide a good deal of history to the object – but never a financial value. They were also honest about its historic value. We also had an auction house do an ‘Antiques Roadshow’ type day as well. They would give a diagnosis as to the object’s history, rarity and then an estimated financial value…
…the issue was the auction house staff were a lot less knowledgeable about history, although dead sharp on rarity. They tended to gloss over anything that might negatively affect the cash value of the object – they did their job very well.

You were there, I wasn’t, so I can only guess. But my guess is that at least some of the museum guys would be as knowledgeable about prices as the auction guys, but it wasn’t their job to talk about money (talking about money is always touchy). Did the museum ever buy things? If it did I guess it must have had somebody on their staff with in-depth knowledge of pricing.

If it’s a national level collection it is ‘owned’ by the state. There are other (private) collections which achieve the standards set for the national level collections, but they are not, by definition, owners of that benchmark.

Excuse my ignorance, but is it your personal definition, or a legal one? And, how is the Shuttleworth Collection, for example, positioned according to that?

For instance the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian will spend a lot of money and effort documenting any variation from the original aircraft – parts replaced, repaired etc.

I would say that in case of NASM as an example, you can just as well replace the ‘national level collection’ with ‘huge and wealthy institution’ and your opinion will become closer to what is true. A national level, state-owned collection with no money will do less to preserve old authentic things than a private collection owned by a rich guy. After all, aircraft aside, we have quite a lot of valuable objects from the past that have been preserved for centuries before the very concept of a state-owned collection was born.

This is very sad news to everyone who knew him, and who enjoyed his unselfish assistance.
I think it is hard to appreciate how bad it is for British aviation history research and writing.

Two DH-60Gs were purchased by the Polish Air Force in late 1920s. Both were used by the Eskadra Treningowa (Training Flight) of the 1 Pulk Lotniczy (1st Air Regiment) in Warsaw. This is one of them pictured at Grudziadz on 23 September 1929.
I guess it was olive green overall,with Polish AF markings on the rudder and on wings (top of the tops and bottom of the bottoms). This one was coded “6”.