Hello (and please excuse the length of this email),

I’m calling on all those with strong opinions in regards to object numbering methods.  My colleagues and I in DC have often debated this issue and it never ceases to amaze us how extreme our views can get over such a simple question.  And so I now pose the question all of you: When numbering an object that has multiple/related parts, is it best to give each object its own unique number or would you group the objects under one number and then delineate the parts with letters?  For example, you have a Tea Set with 6 cups.  Would you, A.) number each cup individually - 2009.1.1, 2009.1.2, etc., or B.) give each cup the same number but with a letter at the end – 2009.1.1a, 2009.1.1b, etc.?

While this seems like a simple question, it is one that goes to the very heart of proper collections management.  Every single piece of literature out there will advise you to never, ever incorporate a letter in your number.  Their reasoning: each object has its own history so why give it the same number as something else? A tea cup is not the same as the box it came in; they’re made from different mediums, have different conditions, different uses, etc. So why give them the same number?  Also, the inclusion of letters with numbers might be lead to confusion.  Consider a Board Game that has 65 parts.  Since there are only 26 letters in the alphabet, the first 26 parts would be a-z, then aa-zz, then aaa-ccc.  The object as a whole would be labeled as ‘2009.1.1a-ccc.’ This can get very confusing and cumbersome in regards to space.  Proponents of strictly-numbers also mention computer databases, which naturally prefer a catalog system based upon numbers only. If an object has related parts, this can be noted in the object’s physical file as well as its database file.

On the flip side, proponents of using letters will tell you that the presence of a letter automatically ties the object with a related object.  Teacup A by its very nature is related to Teacup B and so on.  In the unfortunately scenario whereby you lose your records, the presence of a letter at the end of a number will keep that relationship intact whereas the strictly-numbers approach would not convey that relationship.  Take the Board Game example above, using the strictly-numbers approach you would label the object as ‘2009.1.1-65.’ This appears simpler but what happens if you misplace 1 piece of that game, say object ‘2009.1.45,’ only to find it elsewhere in storage? You would have no idea where it goes, or if its part of a game or anything.  It would become even more confusing if the person who donated the game also donated 50 other objects.  The first 25 objects accessioned could each be one object with no related parts (1-25), but object 26 might be the first piece of the Board Game.  In that case, object 45 doesn’t tell you anything! You’d have to look up the number in your catalog, and if you lose your records then the object’s identification becomes a complete guessing game.  Whereas if the object was ‘2009.1.26f,’ you automatically know that it is 6^th object accessioned of the group beginning with 26a. You wouldn’t have to consult your records, you’d just find the Board Game ‘2009.1.26a’ and put the piece back.  Those in favor of letters state that ‘The object ID should tell you as much as it can about the object without having to consult your records.’ For example, 2009.1.1a informs you the object was accessioned in 2009, it was the first accession of that year, it was the first object in that accession, and that object has a related part, presumably 2009.1.1b and possibly more.

I am sure most of you here, although not all, are part of a museum in which the numbering system was already in place when you arrived, in which case a complete overhaul might be deemed unnecessary.  In my case however, our museum has just been created and the accessioning process has yet to begin.  I have the opportunity to create a proper, organized and sensible numbering system from the ground floor.  If you were in my shoes what would you suggest for objects with multiple/relate parts: strictly numbers or numbers with letter delineation?

For those of you who read through this entire email, Thank You! I look forward to your responses!

Curtis Bateman

IBEW Museum

(202) 728-7691