In a message dated 96-02-01 12:05:29 EST, [log in to unmask] (Henry B.
Crawford) writes:

>Unless it is totally unavoidable, do not mark wood parts (stocks and
>grips).  It's usually best to mark the metal parts, as wood is softer and
>there is more of a danger of permanent surface damage.  Sometimes the grips
>or the stock are the only smooth surface on a heavily engraved arm, and
>must therefore be marked.  Take extra care when marking these non-metalic
>areas.

I disagree with marking the artifact as it diminishes the value of it.
Photograph the collection for insurance and post-theft identification, but
don't destroy the object! We (National Firearms Museum) have a fowler that
belonged to Napoleon. I cannot imagine carving an accession number into this
gun!
>
The prevailing practices of the museum
>profession outweigh the opinions of "enthusiasts."  When done properly, the
>reversibility of the marking process makes it virtually impossible to "muck
>up" the surface.  Using a reversible base coat before applying the ink
>protects the surface from permanent damage and value depreciation.

What is the point of marking the gun with a product that can be reversed by
theives? Isn't the only reason not to use tags is to discourage theft?

BTW, Henry, do you want a tour of the vault while you are in town? Let me
know so I can set it up.

- Adrienne