Coming from the mineral collectors community there’s an observable stigma carried by wealthy private collectors. Because wealthy private collectors are able to purchase excellent, high price specimens these wealthy private collectors are “trophy hunters” whose collections are black holes, that their collections remove from viewing and access mineral specimens deemed “The Property of the People.”

This “trophy hunter” stigma insinuates wealthy private collectors are interested in status only and must be bound by some ethical altruism following an undefined moral collecting code. My experience with wealthy private mineral collectors is entirely the opposite. They collect because they have a passion for beautiful mineral specimens.

It seems that like many aspects of our current world, being wealthy is considered immoral. And, being wealthy is “unfair.” And, being wealthy means all motivation is to flaunt one’s wealth.

It also seems the very action of buying and selling mineral specimens is innately just plain wrong. Excellent mineral specimens must be only in a museum on public display for all to enjoy.

Stated directly, if you are a wealthy private collector, you are a greedy thief.

There’s a very similar stigmatization towards collectors of Route 66 artifacts and paraphernalia, especially the buying and selling of vintage signage. Here is a direct quote lifted from social media, a comment during a discussion on vintage signage preservation:

“I’d rather a sign stay where it is and rot than some rich collector get their hands on it.”

This is very telling. Like many negative stigmas, nuance is replaced by absolutism and open discussion is replaced by entitled obligation. Wealthy private collections are so wrong it’s better to lose a sign forever than preserve a sign in perpetuity. In this biased scenario private collectors have no right to their collections. This attitude is both naive and shortsighted. And here’s why.

To begin, a private property owner has all rights to their sign on their property; private ownership denies any claim of public trust. Further, a private owner is selling their private property to a private collector; the public gets no say in this legal transaction. Finally, there is no obligation of a private owner and private collector to accept and adopt any ethical code outside their financial agreement; money talks.

Here is a second direct quote that further exemplifies the stigma carried by private collectors:

“Just leave (the signs) where they are not in your private garage or basement or bank account from selling it, let’s be truthful.”

The buying and selling of vintage Route 66 signage is an open market and isn’t carried out in secret as I observe. There’s no dishonesty and there’s nothing untruthful. It’s easy to understand and easy to participate.

Money talks and wealthy private collectors have money.

Money talks and private owners are not ethically remiss to sell signage to make money.

Money talks and the way to compete with wealthy private collectors is to raise more money than the wealthy private collector has.

Wealthy private collectors are not evil, immoral, greedy thieves. They’re merely wealthy and enjoy collecting in a way out of reach to most.

My personal feeling is attempts at public purity shaming of private owners and private buyers is hollow and misdirected. Moving past the rhetorical clichés of “private collections are bad” and “private collectors are trophy hunters and trophy hunters are bad” and “better lost forever than in a private collection,” ask the clarifying question, “What’s at the core of my animosity towards wealthy private collectors?”

It’s a difficult question to answer without the rhetoric arguments.

As a final observation, the ethical outrage towards wealthy private collectors only applies to Route 66 signage still in place and eroding. Signage already removed, restored, and preserved gets a pass. It’s an interesting dichotomy.