I'm not disputing the artifacts; the problem is how they are not described. To repeat myself, without labels or graphics, the display doesn't inform or educate. I don't see a single display panel, only artifacts. A mob of crusty well-read collectors will gush and coo about the differences between the No.4 Mk I and Mk I*, but a 25-yr old new shooter without benefit of a large library will have no clue what is happening behind the glass.
Who is this display intended to inform? In my opinion this display entirely misses its objective audience. Conventional bricks and mortar museums are choking. DDay museums in Northern France are regularly closed and the collections dispersed. Today's visitors are much less likely to travel long distances only to be stopped 12" from the objects and only press their noses against a glass. The interwebs teaches so much, and visitors are more interested in the sensory experience of history. Think Ontario Regiment Museum's Acquino weekend, think Bovington's Tank Days, think Old Fort Henry, think Ceremonial Guard, think Canadian Warplane Heritage's flying Lancaster vs the National Aviation and Space Museum's static Lanc' display, etc.
What is my background? Degree in history, compiler of annual military unit historical report, editor of annual journal, small-A archivist, small-M museologist, and volunteer with a historic military vehicle collection (
www.coldwarcollection.com ).