[Rockhounds] Numbering Specimens (WAS: Paint)

[Kreigh Tomaszewski]

John,

If you had started numbering specimens when you started collecting they 
would roughly be in a time sequence. But the number is just a unique 
identifier to tie together the specimen, the label, and the catalog 
entry. If you have ten specimens of the same rock from the same trip 
you have ten numbers (some of them may turn out to have micro crystals 
of something unique). And it really doesn't matter what order you put 
them in.

If you want to try sub-classifying you are going to have the problem of 
remembering the next sequence number for each sub-classification. I 
have specimens from old collections that used a Dana # -- sequence 
number to identify each specimen. A different sub class for every 
mineral, each with its own sequence number. Seems to be overkill to me.

If you don't want to maintain a 'where did I put the specimen' field in 
your catalog, organize your specimens by sequence number. Otherwise the 
sequence number is just a unique identifier. Put your catalog on the 
computer. You can slice and dice your collection into any kind of 
sub-category easily to get a list of matching specimen numbers to go 
pull out of the collection.

So grab the nearest specimen, slap a Siebel0001 label on it, put the 
same number on the label, and create a catalog entry. Grab the next one 
and repeat with the next number. If your needs change along the way, 
all you need to do is add some fields to your catalog; no need to 
change the numbers.

Kreigh



On Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008, at 04:04 America/Detroit, 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. 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
>
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds at drizzle Mailing List
> Subscription Services:
> http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds
> List Home Page, with a link to the List Usage Policy:
> http://www.eclecticlapidary.com/Rockhounds/index.html
>