[Rockhounds] Numbering Specimens (WAS: Paint)

[DonH]

John Siebel wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm getting a start on organizing a 
> huge amount of unlabeled specimens. But I'm hitting a mental gridlock 
> when it comes to numbering them. 


Hi John,

I've written and spoken a number of times on this, and the answer is 
really simple.  The specimen number is nothing more than a link to a 
file containing information about the specimen.  Therefore there is no 
need or benefit to creating a byzantine system that tries to encapsulate 
  characteristics of the specimen into the label itself.  In the process 
of researching this issue, I spoke to a number of major mineral museums. 
  The difficulty there is that a lot of museums are using legacy systems 
that they may never be able to update, given the time and money 
available.  However, given a choice, and the availability of computers, 
many curators expressed a desire to be able to start all over again with 
a simple cataloguing system.  None of them were entirely happy with 
software systems that they'd bought, either, since these are usually 
either created by programmers who don't understand mineral data or by 
collectors who don't understand relational database programming.  The 
same thing with collectors: many mineral collectors (including us!) are 
in or approaching middle age, and began collecting when the only filing 
system was paper.  However, given the opportunity to start all over 
again in the computer age, many collectors would use a simpler and more 
efficient system than what they have.

So yes, a simple numbering system allows easy cataloguing, easy 
retrieval of information, and easy auditing of the collection.

I think it is a good idea to use a prefix, for example, DJH-1.  In the 
case where you have a database system, you can have the prefix as a 
separate text field that gets prepended to the number when the catalog 
or label is printed.  The advantage of this is that the field containing 
the number can be defined as numeric and auto-incremented, which keeps 
the computer side of things in good order.  If someone wanted to keep 
their collections separate based on fossils, minerals, etc., a separate 
prefix could be used for each.  The important thing is to have a 
sequential set of numbers as the core of the index system.

Don't forget to think of the legacy left to your successors, heirs, or 
assigns.  One would imagine that if one cares enough to catalog a 
collection, one would also care about what happens to it.  Over time, 
specimens become sold, traded, or lost.  If someone were to buy or 
inherit your entire collection, it would be easy for them to line up all 
the specimens in numerical order and see what is missing and how many 
there are.  It is easy to take the printed catalogue (which, by the way, 
should be printed on acide-free paper and kept in an archival ring 
binder so that changes may be made easily) and match up the listings to 
the specimens.  If you obtain a collection where specimens are labeled 
as "BD-34-L22" and "VS-4450-ASL," where do you begin?  How would someone 
order them, and how is the catalogue organized?  I believe it was our 
list member Tim Jokela who once said, "do not try to use the label as 
the catalog entry," or words to that effect; in any case, and whoever 
said it, I have used this phrase frequently over the years.

If you ask about this issue on a certain website, you are likely to get 
as many answers as there are people, and lots of chest-beating and 
arm-waving about who has the best system, etc.  Just keep in mind that 
many people are operating under old concepts and methods.  I certainly 
wouldn't expect anyone to re-do their whole cataloguing system if 
they've had their own for decades; on the other hand, if someone is just 
starting to catalogue, there is no logical reason in the world to use 
anything but a simple indexing system.

Good luck,
Don