The same thing basically happened with Malcolm Forbes' collections. It's perfectly normal for heirs to just not value things you've collected in the same way you did.
Would that really be better than letting your family sell it to the highest bidder? The only real concern I see if its value falls below the metal it contains or the mover breaks it. If a family cannot sell and does not value it then whats the point of keeping it?
If one believes that collection should be for the benefit of the public, proper organization would remove it from the estate that goes to the heirs.
It wouldn't matter if the heirs value it or not, because it wouldn't have been theirs. Because he let it remain in his estate, he left it to his heirs to decide what to do with it, and clearly, they did not care to keep it as a public collection, nor to endeavor to keep it together as a collection. I guess I should have visited it when I had the chance.
I'm reminded of the sad case of when I saw the pinball museum in Baltimore once, it was quite interesting, a lot of pre-electronics paddle games and the sort, and naturally, a large arcade of pinball machines. :)
I went to go back one day with friends, and found it had permanently closed in the interim, apparently because they couldn't afford the rent. [1]
(People in that thread love to complain about only getting a 1Y lease - but if they needed to move in a hurry, there's sort of a time crunch, and the longer the lease terms, the less favorable they're likely to be, since the landlord probably wants to hedge against prices going sharply up over that window...)
