Talk:Becket Casket

[Untitled]

it would be a good idea to note that the casket was won at auction by ken thomson - the canadian businessman/collector who was the ninth-richest person in the world - much to the disgust of the british press. lord thomson then decided that the casket should remain in britain and donated it to the V&A. in 2007 the V&A sent the casket to he art gallery of ontario to be displayed beside the equally significant malmesbury chasse, which remains in the thomson collection that now is on display at the AGO. this demonstrates the nature of a true collector - rather than someone who would be swayed by the object's monetary value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.124.162 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the above should be added. It's surely an important part of the "history" of this particular casket. If someone can trace a newspaper article verifying the above, the addition should then be simple. Sorry no time myself at present.Pete Hobbs (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

The caption for the other casket in the article claims that it is Spanish, yet if you click through the image description lists it as being produced in Limoges, and that it currently in the Museum de Cluny. This discrepancy should rectified. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The origin of many pieces is disputed between Limoges and Spain; this one came from Spain & I think would be regarded as of Spanish manufacture by many experts, but not perhaps by a French museum. I've removed all mention of origin, which isn't needed. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Casket/Caskets

Initially the image of the 2nd casket seems like a good addition so as to give a comparison, but in reality it can confuse slightly, and the confusion will get worse in time. The current article is/was intended to be about ONE casket, not several. What's needed is a page title change to "Becket Casket (London)", and then a second page created for "Becket casket (Paris)", and probably within a year or so there'll be a third needed for "Becket casket (Glasgow)" as per the one mentioned as being in the Burrell Collection. Or for the present, maybe change the title of this page to a plural "Becket caskets" and tweak the intro accordingly, putting the different caskets into sections. Or (now I think of it), if the purpose of the article is to describe what is "A Becket casket" rather than "THE Becket casket", it may be sufficient to keep the present title and set an intro describing how a Becket casket is a typical (etc) of period (etc), and then set the specific individual caskets such as the V&A one into separate sections. Yes, that'd be best - I'll note and do it when time (if no one else does first). Pete Hobbs (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The caption and text are clear enough, and AFAIK the V&A casket is the only one to claim the title as a proper name. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Type "Becket casket" into Google and up comes an immediate choice of "Becket casket - V&A" or "Becket casket - British Museum". There's also a "St Thomas Becket casket" at the Royal Academy, found at http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/makinghistory/st-thomas-becket-casket-c-1195-1200,451,AR.html - seems like several casket-shaped reliquaries dedicated to Becket are online, although sadly not the Musee de Cluny one (made FOR Spain rather than made IN Spain, it's Limosges origin seems undisputable to me). The V&A might rightfully be called THE Becket casket as it's (apparently) "the most elaborate, the largest, and possibly the earliest in date" (to quote the V&A), but the Wiki article doesn't state that. No, IMHO the article has definite scope for improvement. Pete Hobbs (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, " AFAIK the V&A casket is the only one to claim the title as a proper name" - ie "Becket Casket". The article covers the fact that a total of 45? such caskets are known 87.194.52.251 (talk)