I have to put my two cents worth (which may be a reasonable appraisal) into this discussion - I fully agree that once you have computerized your collections with a relational database, there is no reason your catalog numbers have to reflect anything (the year, the number of the gift ...). Your computer can pull out any of that information, sort by it, etc., and the computer only needs a unique identifier for each object. That doesn't mean you have to change your numbering system - as long as the database you use accepts the numbers in your format, it is a lot easier on staff to keep the system going. In fact, when someone mentions re-cataloging, as in re-numbering, I cringe. Our institution has had more than one numbering system - in each of our three collecting departments - and each department has artifacts from predecessor institutions with yet more and different numbering systems. As long as each object has a unique number, I put it on the computer the way it is. There is nothing more confusing than trying to identify an object with a number painted on it 50 years ago that has since been re-numbered for a new system - only nobody changed the label. Because old numbers were often put on in very permanent ways, adding another number just adds to the confusion when you can't remove the old one. I know there is a concern about whether numbers will sort properly, but as long as the information you want to sort by - the accession date, the creation date, the object name - is in the record, you can sort by that information and your numbering system won't matter. Carolyn Rissanen Registrar, Natural Sciences and History Oakland Museum of California