This has been a really interesting read and this issue is really hard for me to wrap my head around.
I am one of the most sentimental people. To me, museums are wonderous places and for the things I love most, just KNOWING a piece was a part of its history is incredibly special. Isn't that why most of us are even IN this hobby? Because of the sentimental attachment to the things we see before us in the films?
So on the one hand, as a collector, I want to know these pieces, the ones that I hold so dear, are afforded both respect and reverance. What do I mean? That if you own the Lion's costume from Wizard of Oz, you recognize it is a piece of the very fabric of our popular culture. That you display it, share it with fans when you can, and most importantly, preserve it for future generations. Screen used pieces, in my opinion, come with them a special responsibility replicas just don't have.
At the same time, my sentimentality ALSO means to touch and own a piece of this history is an amazing thought. At the same time, even just a microscopic piece of a costume that "THAT person actually wore in the film" is amazing by itself. A shard of a TOS tunic? The ACTUAL tunic leonard Nimoy wore in the THE TOS?
The problem is that these two very different spheres of the hobby cannot be reconciled with regard to this issue. I recently bought a very rare James Bond relic card that contains a swatch of JB's suit from the opening scenes of Dr. No. The thought made me VERY happy at the time, but I also feel conflicted.
I feel much better when I do know there are OTHERS like it, OR a swatch or relic does no real harm to the constitution of the memoribilia (like a piece of loose thread, or the inside of a cuff).
I def. am not lost of the thought of swatches. I think they are a great idea, and sheesh, relics are not a new idea, they first served religious purposes and even served the basis of church constuctions AROUND the relics.
A piece of history is a piece of history no matter how you cut it, pun intentional.
Hmm...very tough.