Aloha Martin, Ted, list, I have a modest collection of fresh fall individuals that i have been keeping in labeled ziploc bags. Which is fine when stored away in my collection vault. This strategy has worked for me while my collection was under 50 locations. But now that it has grown considerably, and since I now loan them to my institute for exhibits and displays, there is the opportunity for, and risk of having them mixed up and mislabeled (slices are not a problem since they remain in labeled membraneboxes or display boxes). Especially since I narrow my collection pieces to 20-60g complete individuals - many of which resemble each other, although I do pride myself in recognizing all of them by sight.
However, just recently during an inventory, I noticed that my cataloged weights did not jive with a specimen, and discovered that a Pultusk and Oum Dreyga were accidentally switched (most probably from collecting them after an outreach event exhibit). D'oh! I try to keep meticulous records of my pieces, but oversights and accidents can occur. I am considering adopting a numbering strategy, but have concerns as well about what type of paint or pigment to use. Or perhaps if a small affixed numbered label would be a better solution - but then what type of adhesive should be employed? So are there any collectors on the list that do number or label their specimen? And if so, what strategy do they employ? gary On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:48 AM, martin goff wrote: > Hi Ted, > > > Funnily enough, i asked Dr. David Green exactly the same question. The > labels on the Manchester specimens were particularly small and neat. I > am at the point with my collection where i feel the need to number the > individual specimens. I have smaller specimens labelled on the boxes > themselves but the individual stones of a similar size can look very > much alike and i am considering numbering them on the specimen itself. > Then if by whatever means they were mixed up or the display cabinet > were knocked then i would be able to match them up again. > > The labels were printed using carbon ink on archival acid free paper > in very small type (i think he said size 3 or 4) then attached using > archival glue. I didn't ask any further on the exact type of glue > apart from that he mentioned that it was totally reversible. Even if > it is reversible i worry that the glue would permeate the specimen > somehow? > > I am still very much in 2 minds about this but the thought of having > my collection mixed up fills me with dread! > > What are peoples thoughts on labelling specimens? > > Cheers > > Martin > > > > From: ted brattstrom <[email protected]> >> To: Meteorite List <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:18:52 -0800 (PST) >> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Manchester Museum (UK) Visit, Article and >> Images >> Very nice presentation... >> >> >> And it sparked a question: >> >> Museums / collectors "glue" labels onto their rocks (or used to) - What >> glue is used? and what are the ramifications for alteration to the rock. >> (thinking back to the discussion of putties for holding meteorites a week or >> so ago.) >> >> Likewise, for the paint and ink method... a> what was traditionally used? >> and b> effect on the rock. (which should be obvious once the paint is >> indicated :-) ) >> >> Thanks! >> >> ted > ______________________________________________ > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Gary Fujihara Big Kahuna Meteorites (IMCA#1693) 105 Puhili Place, Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 http://bigkahuna-meteorites.com/ http://shop.ebay.com/fujmon/m.html (808) 640-9161 ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
