I have been reading the statements on numbering with great interest.  I
work for a small university museum established in 1939.  At first,
"numbering" the objects was easy--a single donor's collection.  That basic
system, slightly altered is still in place here.

Our numbers are "donor based."  If accessioned before 1980, a number might
be read-- SW:65:13--  donor initials:year of gift:number of object in gift.
For objects accesssioned after 1980-- 1989.4.3 -- in 1989.4th accession
group.3rd object in gift. This works fine for small collections.  Oh, and
if there is only one object in the gift, it would be 1989.4.

You might ask--What about the purchases?  Well, we don't have a huge
accession fund.  Our collection is built on donations with only two
exceptions.  We used to be connected to a funding raising group.  Their art
purchases, though, were recorded as a gift to the museum.

The other exception are small budget purchases.  All of these, though, come
after 1980 so are numbered as such:  year of purchase:accession group

Our collection is primarily of 2dimensional objects.  Occaissionally, as
such, we receive series of prints.  Our numbering solution is simple.   in
1993 Mr. Smith donates four objects, one of which is a series of 5 images.
Mr. Smith is the second donor to the museum that year.  The objects would
be numbered:
        1993.2.1, 1993.2.2, 1993.2.3 and the series would be:
        1993.2.4a, 1993.2.4b, 1993.2.4c, 1993.2.5d, 1993.2.4 e.

This isn't the best system but it works for our collection which is less
than 2000 objects.  I have been toying with the idea of renumbering to
indicate media category (painting, drawing, print, sculpture, etc.) within
the number.  Haven't come up with a workable solution, as yet.

In closing, the most important part of selecting a system of numbering for
objects is consistancy.  Find some way that is strong enough to survive the
challenges yet flexible enough to provide a workable solution.

Jennifer Jaskowiak
Curator of Collections
Fisher Gallery, USC