Viva: We had a similar problem. We had four different numbering systems which we recently converted to a tri-nominal system with letter extensions for some items. We had numbers that were simply the item number listed in a 1942 catalog without accession date records that we converted. Some numbers used a tri-nominal system with fewer places than some numbers needed. We made individual files each item lettered separately with notations in the files that each item was a part of a whole. The place for the lot number remains a triple zero for items we don't have that information on, so our database searches more efficiently. Examples: 2403 became 1942.000.2403 2305a-z became several files 1942.000.2305.a 607 accessioned in 1981 became 1981.000.0607 81.1.23 became 1981.001.0023 Hope this helps. Becky Fitzgerald Registrar Mabee-Gerrer Museum of Art > -----Original Message----- > From: Viva Fisher [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 12:13 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: object numbering questions > > PLEASE EXCUSE CROSS POSTINGS > > Hello All! > > In the course of standardizing our object numbering system, we have > encountered some irregularities. If other list members have addressed > similar situations, would they be willing to share the benefit of their > knowledge? Your expertise would be much appreciated! > > In 2000, we changed our numbering system to conform to the standard > registrarial practice of assigning numbers as Year.Lot.Item.Element . . . > (Example: 2000.4.2.1). > > However, from 1867 to 1999, we used an accession number and catalogue > number combination. In some instances, a single number would be assigned > to an entire box or tray of sherds or lithics. Letter suffixes were > sometimes appended to the catalogue number to distinguish unique objects > that might be meaningfully associated (e.g. left and right shoes or vessel > body and lid) or might not be meaningfully associated (e.g. group of 10 > different spoons). No individual record was created for the object as a > whole (e.g. pair of shoes or lidded vessel). > > Because not all of our older (1867-1999) collections have been catalogued > at the item level, we are now considering how to address their > retrospective numbering. One possibility is to bring the older system > more into line with standard practice by attaching as a suffix .# > (Example: .1, .2, etc.) to the existing catalogue number or letter suffix > whenever an additional suffix is required. This numerical suffix would be > applied to objects with a unique number composed of elements which have > individual loan, exhibition, location, etc. histories or which are parts > of a composite object. > > Have other institutions addressed these issues? Did you find that your > computerized database could accommodate a string of suffixes? And are you > able to relate the different parts of an object, all of which might carry > unique numbers, into a record for the whole object? If so, what type of > numbers and/or letters do you use? > > Thanks very much for your input! > > Viva Fisher > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Genevieve Fisher > Registrar > Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology > Harvard University > 11 Divinity Avenue > Cambridge, MA 02138 USA > T: 617-495-4298 > F: 617-495-7535 > E-mail: [log in to unmask] > <http://peabody.harvard.edu/registration> ========================================================= Important Subscriber Information: The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes). If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).