>>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