Richie Kohler accused of looting

[Diver Dennis]

Why not ask Mr. Rondeau to stop by and comment?

I'd be very surprised to see him answer the call here, which would say a great deal about the credibility of his "facts".

 

[SparticleBrane]

Who do you call, Batman?

Quick! To the Bat-Fax!

 

[cdiver2]

One man's "looting" is another man's "retreiving, saving and preserving for posterity."
You're just here to bash saving and preserving historically significant artifacts, eh?
Rick

I am surprised at you. But to answer your question no I am not, but I am against taking things from war graves or any other wreck for ones own self serving purpose.

 

[Rick Inman]

...think of your wrecked ship as a 1985 Buick LaSabre that you left broken down in LA, say, somewhere on Crenshaw Blvd. Legal or not, don't be suprised when you come back two weeks later and the stereo and wheels are gone.

It's why they don't call 'em ship "sunks", but ship "wrecks". I'm surprised they don't pass international law making it illegal to dump a broken ship in our oceans. You let it sink, you gotta' clean it up. Our ocean seems to be the only place where it's ok to leave your trash. And the same people who don't want you to wear gloves so you won't touch the natural reef also don't want you removing the junks abandoned on the bottom.

There are 17 div-able wrecks in our local lake - most from the late 1800's to early 1900's. Most are 60' to 160' in length and were used for the transport of people to the mining areas and for pulling barges. Some of the wrecks (because of the depth and because only a handful of us know the GPS on them, and because the number of divers trained to dive to them is so limited in this area), will only be seen by a handful of us, ever. The history is in the people who lived and worked on those boats, not in the junk they left abandoned in the bottom of our lake.

 

[Spratman]

I thought I recalled reading that the Thai government has no rules against recovering artifacts from wrecks (commercial or war). If that is the case, then what is the beef? No laws were broken, especially if it was within Thai waters. As John stated, it's not a legality debate but an ethical one now.

 

[LVX]

It was reported to the ROW, conserved, and is being restored. I believe there may be an article in WDM in the near future. Pics of the bell can be seen here:
AUE MAIN - JUNE 2007

OK, let me rephrase the question. Where 'will' the bell reside once conservation is over?

thanks

Layne+

 

[cdiver2]

I thought I recalled reading that the Thai government has no rules against recovering artifacts from wrecks (commercial or war). If that is the case, then what is the beef? No laws were broken, especially if it was within Thai waters. As John stated, it's not a legality debate but an ethical one now.

A quick search

Although salvage can be undertaken against any description of vessel capable of navigation, the draft

Act will not apply to warships or other government vessels

used for non-commercial purposes,

Although the Act does not give the salvor the right to retain the salved ship or other property, it sets out that such vessel or property will not be removed from the port or place at which they first arrived after the completion of the operations unless (a) permission has been given by the salvor, (b) removal is by order of the court or competent authorities, or

 

[aue-mike]

OK, let me rephrase the question. Where 'will' the bell reside once conservation is over?

thanks

Layne+

I believe in the gentleman's house who recovered it, unless the ship owner makes a claim with the ROW in the alloted time period, which would end next month.

 

[LVX]

That is exactly what I am talking about. Earlier in this thread someone said the reason they don't take photos of the real deal is because 'why take a photo when you can have the real McCoy." Well, now that is exactly what I am stuck with; a photo on someone's website... Wouldn't it be better if the bell were presented to the public maybe in the area where the ship was built or served.

Just my 2 cents....

 

[aue-mike]

That is exactly what I am talking about. Earlier in this thread someone said the reason they don't take photos of the real deal is because 'why take a photo when you can have the real McCoy." Well, now that is exactly what I am stuck with; a photo on someone's website... Wouldn't it be better if the bell were presented to the public maybe in the area where the ship was built or served.

Just my 2 cents....

Well, that's just not very realistic. As I mentioned museums are not a panacea, as there is just no way to conserve and display every single ship's bell recovered off shipwrecks, let alone other artifacts; re-read the article I posted and note the issues with the status of some museum's collections.

Here you have an individual who recovered an object that ZERO individuals (i.e., non-hardcore-eagle-eyed-techdivers) would ever get to see in their lifetimes that he has recovered, conserved, and restored at his own expense. The recovery of which resulted in the identification of an unknown shipwreck, which has revised/corrected history books. Thousands have gotten to see pictures of it on the internet from the comfort of your own homes (and for free) and in pending books and magazine articles. And if this particular bell means so much to you or anyone else that you absolutely must see it in person, why not contact the individual who recovered it? He is an extremely nice guy and I am fairly certain he would allow interested individuals to view, inspect, and study the bell if they so wish.

I have been to many wreck diver's homes and seen their artifact collections, whether for personal enjoyment or research for my book projects. In most cases I learn more about the object, the ship, and history in general by talking to the individual who collected it than I have from an analogous object seen in a museum with a small ID placard. Not to mention all the objects boxed up and in storage in museums or government agencies, where access sometimes is near impossible to obtain.

I love museums. I love the fact that I (and the general public) can go to the Mariner's Museum in Newport News and see an ironstone pitcher I found on the USS MONITOR (during a NOAA expedition). I have been to more maritime museums in more countries than I can remember. But it is unrealistic they can display every artifact -- or even major artifacts -- from historically insignificant shipwrecks. Without some historical significance (other than it sunk 90 years ago) most museum curators would probably even say "its just a bell" and decline to display it.

Are you simply against personal ownership? What about individuals who own Picasso's, Rembrandt's, et al.? Is it unfair they get to hang those in their house over their mantle and rob you of your "right" to view them? Perhaps you should ask them to donate all their art to museums too?

Respectfully,
Mike