Items being sold by THS mad

[181218]

Have just joined THS again. The Communtator really is a great magazine and they do a really fantastic job. However I can’t help but feel these new items they have up for sale to raise money are ridiculous.

Before people bite my head off for saying this about THS I think I have a valid point. Surly selling ridiculous items the size of a of a spec of dust such as a tiny dot from Astor’s life Jacket or a spec of wood from a deck chair at $900 a go is not the correct way to go about it. I personally think these items are over priced, vulgar, and as said before ridiculous. I certainly would not want something so tasteless and vulgar in my collection. To me it is like Titanic coal — no offence to people that have bought it but it's just not for me.

They are very correct when they say be cautious with your money when it comes to buying Titanic memorabilia. However I can’t help but feel with their latest offerings they should be warning THS members (who are stupid enough) to NOT waste a small fortune on these ridiculous items.. What will they sell next? Fragments of Titanic dust in a frame ???? Maybe $1500 ago !!! This to me is not history but cashing in on the commercialisation of how stupid and expensive Titanic items have become to raise money - however good their intentions are....No I will rephrase that. It is cashing in on the commercialisation of how ridiculous Titanic items have become — otherwise they would not be able to sell tiny fragments the size of a pin-head at such a high price.

Where dose the money go ? Well I’m sure it goes to a lot of VERY worthy causes in persevering the history of the Titanic. That I am sure of. But let us not forget they have also had a pretty good time over the years. Whether that has been meeting James Cameron and stars while attending the premier of ‘Titanic’ or the many conventions they have enjoyed at the plaza. This dose not come cheap. Nor dose flying Titanic survivors out from round the world to America to attend - all of which they have had the main privilege of meeting. So all that said they have had a good time on the T.H.S money and have done a good job with the high quality of the communtator.

You guys are probably going to come down on me like a ton of bricks, but I think I make some valid points. After reading the careful wording about the ‘Titanic’ dust they are selling for $900 as being history in the T.H.S catalogue — I just wanted to say I don’t think that is history... I think it's over priced and ridiculous.


.

 

[Mike Bull]

I've noticed this too, and I guess that it's like so many things to do with the Titanic; there's something available for every taste, from the coal pieces to the inflatable floating ships complete with iceberg, to all the serious books (and Captain Collins' one, too!) and higher-class collectibles.

To someone, somewhere, these small fragments may actually be worth that money, and the cause the sale is for is certainly a good one, but I personally would see no reason to want to own a tiny scrap of cork, whether it's been on the Titanic or not; speaking from personal experience of the RMST Inc coal pieces, I would feel nothing form it but detached disappointment.

But, as I say, each to their own!

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

"...You guys are probably going to come down on me like a ton of bricks, but I think I make some valid points..."

You do make valid points. To sell a fragment of a life jacket or a speck of dust is not dignified and is almost as tactless as the display of objects brought up from the wreck.

That said, THS is usually very respectable (and respectful) and Ed Kamuda is a fine, honest man, if sometimes ill-advised by others who haven't the level of concern that he has.

 

[Nicolas Roughol]

Well, Miles, no matter how respected THS is, I can't but agree with all the points you've raised. It really appears as the ultimate way to get every possible dime out of the name of the ship.

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

The sale of these items, or particles of items, is said to be to raise money for a museum to house the THS collection. A worthy cause, no doubt-but it raises the interesting question, yet again, of when does it become distasteful to sell artifacts-after they sank with the ship and were retrieved, washed up, scooped up on the surface or donated by someone who was saved? Seems like there are, like religious relicts-all designations of what constitutes an artifact, and interpretations of when it is a noble effort to sell them- and when it is graverobbing. I agree, the prices are ridiculous, whatever the cause. This museum fund-raising technique has gone on for quite some time. Thought-provoking, and amusing-this business.

 

[181218]

For me personally I think the Americans have made the Titanic a bit vulgar and big money. They have given the Titanic a touch of Hollywood. Not just with the film. This goes back years. I don’t want to offend Americans by saying that. But I can’t help but feel the film Titanic (although a side of me did love it) & the James Camerons, Celine Dions, Ken Marshalls, Doctor Ballads, Don this and Don that have not done the Titanic cause any good in the long term. Nor T.H.S selling these items. They have added a touch of Hollywood and vulgarity to the whole thing — which for me is not what the Titanic is about. Actually Doctor Balled is ok so I will take what I said back....But he has opened up the door for a lot of salvage operations or as Eva Hart put it grave robbing. Having said that if it had not been him whom found the Titanic it would have been someone else. And that somone else could have been worse. I can remember watching some documentary in 1998 about them trying to raise the BIG PIECE and failing. There was an awful American guy in charge of bringing the piece up. I can’t understand how a creature like that could head such a big salvage operation or what the french guy he was working with must of thought of him. I don’t think he was a professional but rather a businessman. Anyway he has brought all the stuff up and I think it is touring as we speak. But he really was an awful little man. He is making money by touring the relic's because he can not sell these items.

When the film came out and Ken Marshall and Don ( might have been another one ) were talking about the film & how everyone had worked so hard to create a long since passed period off time with the characters and how people acted in a certain way in 1912 etc. Again I could not help but feel nah --- Molly Brown would not have worn such bright red lipstick and nor would the character Rose for that matter. Not as early as 1912. Should have just given Madonna the part !!! All the effort they made in building such a good replica of the grand staircase and then they had to go and slop bright red lips on the characters. Don’t think people started wearing make up like that until the 1920’s….. Not that it matters. Did not think some of the language used in the film was very 1912 ether.

When the film came out I could not even get to the convention in the UK. Not that it was the fault of BTS, so my dad and I went home. Don’t know what it is like now ? I imagine it has calmed down a bit.

 

[Bill Willard]

Miles, you might want to learn facts about your "awful little man" before you print statements about him. He was my friend.

In 1996, I was present as was other members of this forum when RMST tried to raise the Big Piece for the first time. Thanks to an inadequate winching system on board the Jim Kilabuk, the mission wasn't accomplished. The piece was released to go back down to the ocean floor when a hurricane's swells caused the Kilabuk issues.

People have thrown lots of verbal stones at your "awful little man". This person never once talked about selling the artifacts. And it was his philosophy that they should never be privately owned, but only conserved and displayed for the public to see. So you word choice "he can not sell these items" should read "he would not sell these items".

IFREMER, the French team you referred to, had only the highest of praises for George Tulloch, because of his sincerity and professionalism. Yes he was a businessman (a very successful one, by the way) prior to working with Titanic. That gave him a perspective of both arenas, the business side as well as the historical side. He knew the business side of the industry, and he supported himself with highly-reputable experts to strengthen the technical side of the experience. P.H. Nargeolet could answer every question George could not.

For the record, he is no longer "making money" by touring the artifacts. He has not been with RMST since late 1999. As a matter of fact, he passed away January 31, 2004, not quite 3 months ago. But he was and forever shall be my friend. I believe and support his cause: that everything recovered must be conserved, and must be kept for public display. Do you support leaving the artifacts down there to disintegrate and disappear? Or do you support a controlled recovery plan, one that is overseen by a Federal Judge?

Again, I challenge you to learn about the man, and learn the facts before you decide whether or not he was good for Titanic. And before you make your decision, remember that Ballard was at Titanic in '85 and '86, and all we Titanic enthusiasts got to see was the National Geographic special (the one where Ballard curses three times), Ballard's book, and a few NG magazines of Titanic. Then the IMAX film gave us 90 more minutes, and now GOTA. Other than that, everything else... came from the Tulloch-led expeditions.

Reagrds,
Bill

 

[Kyrila Scully]

You are obviously passionate about your opinions, Miles, but don't let your passion blind you. I visited MOSI in Tampa where the Big Piece was on display, just one week to the day George Tulloch passed away after a long illness. It is painful for me to describe the emotions that overwhelmed me unexpectedly as I first laid eyes on it, knowing it was George's passion to bring the piece of hull to the surface and prove that Titanic was more than just a great film. I was overwhelmed because the hull was adjacent to the cabins of people whose lives I have studied for over forty years, one of whom I will be portraying in my Titanic Impact educational programs. I was overwhelmed because it was the last thing George brought up before he got sick, and all that happened to his dream following his illness. I was overwhelmed because it was the closest I will ever get to seeing the great ship. I was overwhelmed because it was this ship and its passengers who inspired me as a child to survive horrific events that had occurred in my young life. So while I am passionate that articles obviously being all that remains of a body be left untouched (something I doubt Arnie Geller will adhere to, but George insisted upon) or articles ripped off the ship, causing further damage, I cannot feel the same passion for the articles recovered from the debris field, items I have seen several times. It is seeing these items that renew my passion to inspire other hurting people to go on with their lives, through the telling of the story of Titanic. I feel closer to the spirits of the people I honor with my programs when I am in such an exhibit. If I can convey their spirits through my performances, and encourage one traumatized child or one hurting adult to overcome their ordeals, then I feel the spirits of Titanic's people are carried on.

Tearfully yours,
Kyrila Scully

 

[181218]

Well then if my opnion is blinded then so is Eva Harts & I go along with what she said about bringing stuff up. Why? Because the Titanic is a comparatively modern day disaster and gravesite. There are still people alive today who suffered a great deal from the disaster. The Titanic is hardly an Egyptian wreck. There are plenty of historical things still around from the first 2 years after the Edwardian period and steamships of that time without having to bring up personal items from what is a gravesite. In-fact as we know there is a whole hotel full of the Olympics fittings in far much better condition.

How would relatives feel if we took personal items from the World Trade Centre and put them on display? Although it may not seem that way to us it is not that different. Why ? Because there are still people alive whom suffered a great deal from the disaster small in numbers though they maybe. For example Titanic survivor Lillian Asplund. After reading what she went through I can well respect her reasons as I can with Eva Harts. Her mother lost about 3 children and a husband AND never recovered until she died in the 60's. So she must have seen her mother affected by the whole Titanic thing up until again comparatively recent years, plus her own grief. It must be awful to see your mother in such a way for so long. I understand if a mother losers a child let alone 3 they never recover - and a husband !!! And her mother never did recover. So that brings the whole thing right into the 21st century yet we are putting these things on display ? Somthing dose not seem right here... Shell we get a cup from the World Trade Centre - that someone might have had their last coffee out of and display them in the victims relatives life time ? I don’t think you have any argument. Like I said the Titanic is hardly an Egyptain tomb. It is not like we are trying to learn about a long lost civilisation and find out more about these people. We knew/know these people. They are our grand parents and great grand parents. Get things in perspective.

 

[181218]

I’m sorry to hear about this guys death. That said he certainly dose not come across as professional to me in the film I watched. And I have also seen some controversial documentaries with him in — again he dose not come across very well. The way he acted when the big piece finally was raised was abysmal. It’s caught on film so you cannot blame me or others for thinking like this. He’s stamping his feet up and down like a kid saying such and such a person should have been here to see this. Awful and that did not seem professional. I did not see the French guy act like that.

But hey I might be wrong. Are we talking about the same man here ? In the documentary I watched he celebrates his 50th birthday on board the recovery ship. This documentary was in 1998 or near enough.

I’m sorry I don’t share his tearful dream. Just as I do not believe Yoko Ono when she tearfully markets every single thing she possibly can with John Lennons name — to make money... You say it’s not for money ? Well I wonder about that…. And even if I did believe this salvage team undertook this mammoth salvage for just charitable or should I say historical reasons I still don’t think it is justified. I think this team of people knew that there was money to be made somewhere along the lines and at some point otherwise they would not be doing it.

 

[Paul Lee]

Not all survivors had the same viewpoint as Eva
"My mother..... had a premonition" Hart. Bert Dean was very much in favour of salvaging items. Why does Eva's viewpoint count and Bert's doesn't?

Paul

 

[181218]

I never said Berts did not count. I just stated what I thought and that I agree with people like Eva Hart and respect/understand people like Lillian Asplund.... Maybe in a few years time they will put the stuff from the World Trade Centre on display. In the victims relatives life time - then we can all have a good look ! !

 

[181218]

Having said that I'm a sucker just like the rest of you. I will admit that. I'm sure we are all tempted or interested in this stuff. After all it is to do with our passion.

However I still would not think it was right. I would not go looking for reasons to justify my actions - and say to myself well Bert thinks it's ok so maybe what I'm doing is fine after all!!! In the back of my head I know really it’s not that much different to looking at stuff from a more recent air disaster - tho it may feel that.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I’m sorry to hear about this guys death. That said he certainly dose not come across as professional to me in the film I watched.<<

I wonder how you can speak to "This guy's" professionalism when you can't even be troubled to remember his name or even learn the first thing about him beyond the editorial hack job you saw in some film you can't even name. For the record, "This guy's" name was George Tulloch. Miles, a little suggestion in light of all the stones you seem intent on throwing around in here: You may want to take some time to learn a thing of dozen about each of the people you've mentioned by name befor you start pitching rocks at them.

While you certainly have a right to your opinion, it would serve you well to make each one an informed opinion.

 

[181218]

I mentioned some slimy American guy from a documentary I watched a few years ago. He did not come across well - sorry. Yes the name George Tulloch dose ring a bell, I'm sure it's the guy I was talking about. Yes I do not know much about him, but it takes no genius to work someone like him out. I can well believe you when you say he was a very successful businessman. Even though I don't know that much about him - I could pick up on that aspect of his character straight away... wonder why ????

So I offer a general opinion of how he comes across on T.V….. I saw him in another documentary and again he came across very much as a businessman who was in it for the money. I did not believe he was sincere in the slightest. I maybe wrong but that is the impression he gives out of himself.

Maybe no money has YET been made from these artefacts for various reasons. Like you said I don’t know the ins and outs. But I think at some point someone is going to make a lot of money !!! Hence why all this is taking place.

So far it is coal they can market from this salvage. Again I might be wrong about the coal. Maybe that's nothing to do with him.