[Rockhounds] Numbering Specimens

[Jim Murowchick]

Lots of good ideas are being provided for numbering systems.  I use a
sequential number on specimens in my personal collection, mainly because
it's a legacy from my Dad, and as I enter info into a database, sequential
numbers are easy to enter and let me know what kind of progress I'm making.
I also print out a sheet of sequential numbers (about 8pt font) on a PSA
sheet, then score the sheet with a razor knife and ruler so I can peel off
the numbers as I need them to stick them to the specimen.

  But at work, where I have several collections to curate, we use the Dana
number followed by a letter (a-z, aa-zz, etc.) for multiple specimens of the
same material.

    The weakness of this method is what to do when there's more than one
mineral in a specimen (we use the dominant or most significant mineral on
the sample).  The number is written with a drafting pen on white lacquer
(nail polish) spot on the specimen, then covered with clear nail polish when
dry.  It's time-consuming, but durable. The strength is that if a sample
gets misplaced, we can immediately get an idea of what's in the sample if we
can't ID it on sight, and get it back to its proper location. (Clever
students have used this to help them on mineral ID quizzes, though.)

    The Dana numbers are readily searchable in a database, and I'm gradually
converting the file cards to a FileMakerPro database.

    Older specimens in the UMKC collection (form when it was Kansas City
University) were classified by group (T for tectosilicates, C for
cyclosilicates, P for phyllosilicates, etc.), followed by a sequential
number.  We've assigned new accession numbers for those to better integrate
them into our file system.

Jim Murowchick


On 12/2/08 3:04 AM, "John Siebel" <john at pandemoniumgraphics.com> 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. Where to start? Do I simply grab the first one I
> see and give it the honor of being #0001? Should I start with the more
> impressive specimens and work my way down from there? Should I work
> chronologically from earliest collected to most recent (although that sounds
> unlikely)? How to deal with multiples (like the dozens of
> stilbite/calcite/quartz from XYZ Quarry)? Do they all get the same number?
> 
> I'm also consider sub-classification (if that's the right term), fossils
> being  f-0001 or 0001-f  for instance. But I can see that getting pretty
> whacky with the rest of the collection. Any thoughts?
> 
> Perhaps Julie's OCD is rubbing off on me but I want to start this process in
> a logical manner so I'm not tempted to redo it at a later date. Like that
> will ever happen!
> 
> Thanks for any input - John
>