>In article <[log in to unmask]>, "Henry B. Crawford"
><[log in to unmask]> says:
>>
>>I don't advocate permanent marking for any object, but as for a semi-perm.
>>reversible method, we just use large paper tags with the number written
>>with a marker on the tag, not the object.
>
>While I don't disagree with Henry that "permanent" marking is a good idea,
>I believe that merely tagging any object is a dangerous practice.


No, no.  I must have been misunderstood.  Sorry.  Here's what I meant:

Permanent marking is not good, but I do not advocate the *exclusive* use of
tags, simply because of what you said.  They can become detatched.  Tags
allow one to view the number w/o handling the object itself.

For large objects, please do number it in a REVERSIBLE way, but it doesn't
hurt to tag it as well.  That way you don't have to go looking for the
number written on the object unless you have to.  Also, for large objects
it helps to establish a standard place for the number, e.g., for autos,
perhaps the steering wheel.  For wagons, perhaps somewhere on the back of
the seat.

Don't ever depend on a tag as THE method of identification.  Always have a
back-up.

HBC

****************************************
Henry B. Crawford        Curator of History
[log in to unmask]     Museum of Texas Tech University
806/742-2442           Box 43191
FAX 742-1136             Lubbock, TX  79409-3191
***** "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead!!" *****