The Society of American Archivists defines deaccessioning as “the process by which an archives, museum, or library permanently removes accessioned materials from its holdings.” This process is an important part of collections care, and we periodically review the collection to ensure our holdings align with the collecting scope outlined in our collections policy. As an institution that has collected for almost 100 years, we have acquired a large amount of material, not all of which is suited to our mission.
The Curatorial Staff approaches deaccessioning with great care, reviewing each item individually. In addition to examining the object in person, we consult both paper and digital records to assess its provenance, maker, donor, exhibition history, duplicate status, and previous expert assessments. We review any scrap of information that may reveal the object’s importance and its place within the Museum’s collection.
During a recent textile review session, we came across two garments recommended for deaccession by a textile expert and prior staff. Looking closely, we found that these dresses are more significant than previously thought. One dress, 1973.218, had been recommended for deaccession because it did not appear to have any American maritime connections. When we opened the box, we were surprised to see a vibrant purple dress in spectacular condition with the Parisian maker’s original tags: “ROBES & CONFECTIONS / R. LHOPITEAU / 41. RUE VIVIENNE.41.” As we examined the three-piece garment, we found that the ribbing in the bodice and jacket was made of whale baleen. Further research in Le Moniteur de la Mode (The Fashion Monitor) revealed that the dress was likely made by Mademoiselle Pauline Conter of Lhopiteau House, around 1860.

Whale baleen and bone, both sometimes referred to as “whalebone,” were harvested from filter-feeding whales like bowheads and right whales. These whales use baleen—long, bristly strips in their mouths—to filter their food from the water. Baleen strips, known as “plates,” are made of keratin, just like your fingernails and hair. Because of its sturdiness and flexibility, baleen was an excellent material for garment structure and was commonly used in clothing and accessories from the late 16th to the early 20th century. Baleen could be found in corsets, bodices, skirts, umbrellas, buggy whips, boxes, and other items.
Although the Museum has an extensive collection of materials related to the whaling industry, including many examples of baleen, we have surprisingly few garments with baleen boning. The dress’s original 1970s catalog record was minimal, and there was no mention of the baleen. This discovery changed our understanding of the object. The baleen, paired with the dress’s significance as a lens into a global maritime economy, helped us decide the dress should remain in the collection.
A later textile-focused session highlighted another dress recommended for deaccession. This dress, 1959.1041, is an 1894 wedding dress worn by the donor’s aunt. The records show no other information or connection to our collecting scope. As with the Parisian dress, a closer look revealed baleen used in the bodice. Now we can confidently say we have two garments with baleen boning in the collection.

As you can see, deaccessioning is not only about refining our collection. It also helps us sharpen our understanding of objects, uncover new stories and information, and improve catalog records. Most importantly, it can reveal when an object should stay in the collection. Stay tuned for more deaccessioning tales later this month!
-Lydia Downs, Collections Management Associate & Deaccession Specialist













