>>Our registrar is about to catalog a portfolio of Ben Shahn lithographs
>and
>>has encountered two different numbering systems in use by other museums.
>>We'd like to get an idea of what's standard.

My feeling is that there are as many "standard" ways of numbering as
there are museums. Perhaps more: I know of at least one large and long-
established insitution that counted over 100 styles in use in their
registration system! Using numbers to indicate "whole-part"
relationships is especially tricky. Personally I prefer the option to
give one "whole" number to the whole object, -  i.e. the portfolio of so
many prints by Ben Shahn is, say, 1996.1 - so that you can easily refer
to it as a whole object. Then give "part" numbers to each individual
bit, by adding an extension number to the "whole" root. So the cover is
1996.1.1, the first print is 1996.1.2, etc. These are the numbers
actually marked on each print (nothing bears the "whole" root just by
itself - it's just a cataloguing convenience). Each part can then be
given its own detailed catalogue entry independently of the whole item.

>
>If you assign an individual number to the cover/title page, it is taken as
>an integral part of the portfolio as a whole (as opposed to unimportant
>packaging material).  In addition, if the cover is separated from the
>lithographs, you know by looking at the number that there are more
>components to search for.

If you have the luxury of being able to standardise numbering over the
whole of your collection then a rational numbering system (in which
numbers MEAN something) may be possible. Then you could tell from the
number that there are more bits of the same item to look for.
Unfortunately, most of us have inherited older numbers that are not part
of such a rational system. Thus the numbers can't be assumed to mean the
same thing in every case. For instance, in some cases sets of items are
given series of numbers (1996.1, 1996.2, 1996.3...) such that there is
not one overall number to indicate the set (instead you have to quote
the range of numbers that pertains to that group); and in other cases a
set is given one overall number as I suggested above. In even more
complex cases a collection of items (say things from a particular donor
all given at the same time, any or all of which may be individual sets)
is given one number, making the numbers of the individual components of
each set something like 1996.2.1, 1996.2.2, etc. This means that looking
at an individual number in isolation tells you nothing about how many
related items there are or what the relationship is. My feeling
therefore is that, in most long-established collections with their large
variety of numbering styles, the numbers are meaningless. They are just
a link to the associated information about the objects.

Many variations can be made from these ideas! For example:

VERSION A
Portfolio of prints  : 1996.1
  Cover for portfolio: 1996.1.1
  Print 1            : 1996.1.2
  Print 2            : 1996.1.3

VERSION 2
Cover for prints   : 1996.1
Print 1            : 1996.2
Print 2            : 1996.3
Print n            : 1996.n
("Portfolio of prints" then becomes the range 1996.1-1996.n)


VERSION 3
The John Doe Collection: 1996.1
  Portfolio of prints  : 1996.1.1
     Print 1           : 1996.1.1.1
     Print 2           : 1996.1.1.2

And so on ...


My favourite real life example is the doll's house shop featuring a set
of miniature jars of jam, etc., etc. As part of a collection from one
donor the shop already had a complex root number of something like NCM
1972-123/45. The cataloguer started itemizing the individual parts by
using letters of the alphabet. There were a lot more than 26 items. They
went round the alphabet several times from NCM 1972-123/45a to z, from
aa to zz, from aaa to qqq. In the end the numbers were almost as big as
the objects!

Michael P. Cooper
Registrar
Nottingham Museums, UK