Hey Jason and List,
Thanks for that very informative cataloging solution. I have also been
pondering how to mark meteorites, fossils and artifacts without having to
use the white matt paint with black ink overtop. I always thought this old
way was rather ugly and distracting from specimens.
Best regards,
Greg
====================
Greg Hupe
The Hupe Collection
NaturesVault (eBay)
gmh...@htn.net
www.LunarRock.com
IMCA 3163
====================
Click here for my current eBay auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Utas" <meteorite...@gmail.com>
To: <i...@niger-meteorite-recon.de>; "Meteorite-list"
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Labeling specimens
Hello All,
When we decided that we wanted to start numbering our specimens a few
years ago, we had a few dilemmas to work out. First-off, how should
we apply the numbers? Some of the museum numbers that we'd seen
seemed to have a layer of underlying paint with numbers painted over,
resulting in a rather large patch of paint, especially on a stone that
might weigh a mere gram or so. As such, we decided to write
collection numbers directly on the meteorite, so as to cover as little
of the meteorite's surface as possible.
But - what to use? We pondered the question for a few weeks, and then
had an idea - every time we've been to the local Page Museum at the
La Brea Tar Pits (repetitive, right?), we've seen every single bone
meticulously numbered and cataloged, with fine white numbers 'painted'
on each one. So Peter went and asked them; what they use there is
what we use now: a fountain pen with white Pelikan ink.
http://www.pelikan.com
I wasn't able to find the same ink on their website - or any white ink
in general, but I do know that they produce it and that it is supplied
to an art-supplies store near our house.
I think this might be the same ink:
http://www.duall.com/store/product/113116.113116/pelikan-drawing-ink-10ml-18-white.html
At any rate, it dries quickly and tends to be pretty hard to remove,
so it's good for marking specimens. I don't know much about its
chemical composition, but we haven't seen any signs of oxidation on or
near ink on marked specimens, so I assume that it's not doing much
harm. A cheap fountain pen will run you up ten dollars at most (you
can check out the Pelikan site for pricier models if you wish), and
the ink is a few dollars a bottle.
Reasonable, effective.
Regards,
Jason
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:12 PM, i...@niger-meteorite-recon.de
<i...@niger-meteorite-recon.de> wrote:
Ed, Count and list,
I'd like to second the count's and Ed'd considerations regarding numbering
your
specimens. Of course most private collectors recognize their individual
meteorites. Mix ups are not so much a problem during one's lifetime. At
least
not unless we don't start to juggle with a couple of hundred specimens
which we
lend to exhibitions, for research, or have our kid's kindegarden pals sort
through them.
However, as Dave Gheesling recently has pointed out in his excellent
article on
Temporary Custodians, sooner or later every collection will be broken up,
separated or turned over to the following generation. If no written track
on the
individual specimens has been kept, the knowledge on these treasures will
perish
with the previous owner.
Dealer and museum curators can tell you stories of collections offered by
heirs,
where all the information that was passed with a specimen, if any at all,
was a
name on a crumpled paper card. When pieces are not individually packed,
which is
also quite common, no safe attribution of specimen cards and meteorites
can be
untertaken at all.
Photos are one way to assign identity to a specimen, but unless you do not
have
the patience of a Zen monk and you are faced with a collection that has 20
small
Gaos, Pultusks, Wilunas and Zags in it, you soon discover the limits of
this
approach.
I very much encourage everyone to undertake the little effort. All that it
takes
to preserve the identity of a specimen is a printed or digital inventory
list,
which contains some sort of distinct, non-ambigous assignment of a
specimen and
the information associated. The pendant should be applied directly on the
specimen itself, it's the safest way. Painted numbers in my experience
have
prooven superior, but other means of course are appropriate too. Safely
storing,
better publishing or distributing your collection catalogs of course is
crucial
to preserve that information.
There are many and perhaps better examples how one may label and number
his
specimens, anyway, to get a picture this may be sufficient:
http://www.meteorite-recon.com/en/Meteoritensammlung.htm
cheers
Svend
www.meteorite-recon.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Deckert" <edeck...@triad.rr.com>
To: <countde...@earthlink.net>; "martin goff"
<msgmeteori...@googlemail.com>;
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Labeling specimens
Hello Count, Martin and List,
I agree with the Count about painting numbers on specimens. As he points
out, Lylle, Huss, Nininger, and others have done it, and so do many
museums.
I worked (volunteered) with the Curator of Collections in our local
Science
Museum in 2008 to inventory their collection. In about 97% of all cases,
the Accession Number was painted directly on the item in an out of the
way
place - be it a meteorite, mineral, or other piece in their collection.
The
exception being, of course, where painting was impossible or problematic.
Stick-on labels can fall off as the adhesive can deteriorate with time. I
have purchased meteorite specimens with an adhesive label applied to the
cut/polished surface, and that is not a problem for me unless the label
falls off. Painting the numbers on eliminates that problem as long as the
surface is clean, dry, and free of loose particulate matter.
One of these days, when I get some time, I plan to label my large-enough
specimens with painted-on numbers, do a photographic record, and set up a
database for my collection. I have a decent DSLR, bellows, and macro
lenses. With a little practice and good lighting, I hope to be able to
master macro photography.
Ed Deckert
IMCA #8911
----- Original Message -----
From: <countde...@earthlink.net>
To: "martin goff" <msgmeteori...@googlemail.com>;
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Labeling specimens
Good Morning Martin and List,
I truly believe that we homo sapiens have a well developed ability to
remember past beneficial and not so beneficial actions accomplished by
our
predecessors in order to guide us when important decisions have to be
made.
What was good enough for the likes of Lylle, Huss, Nininger, Kurat,
Kulik
and so many other pioneers and experts in meteorite collection and
curating....should point the way for us...PAINT NUMBERS ON THEM!.....Or
write up a nice little piece of software that allows you to take a
decent
digital macro photo of your sprecimens and manipulate it into a nicely
referenced data base for easily referenced identification and
description.
Regards to all...and I had a wondefull time in Tucson..thanks to so many
from the List,
Count Deiro
IMCA 3536
-----Original Message-----
From: martin goff <msgmeteori...@googlemail.com>
Sent: Feb 27, 2010 3:50 AM
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Labeling specimens
All,
Thanks for your all your comments on and off list, most interesting. I
think i am being steered
away from directly labelling my stones unless they are NWA or
unclassified. However it seems a bit of a double standard that if i
were to label my specimens myself it would be somehow frowned upon yet
we as collectors value specimens with Nininger/Huss numbers etc. If
for example a specimen was obtained say from the Manchester museum
with one of their recently applied labels on would any of us remove the
label? I very much doubt it, we would prize that specimen as showing
provenance from that collection, that would match their catalogue etc.
etc. In 50 or 100 or however many years that specimen would only get
more and more historical and that label have more and more importance
attached to it.
I suppose my point is that would we now have the same number of
Nininger/Huss etc.labelled stones if they didn't have numbers written
directly on them? If say they had been displayed/sold in a bag or box
with a label but no markings on, over time would some have have been
separated from their boxes/bags and labels? I would hazard a guess
that quite a few would have suffered this fate and now we would be
left with some unidentifiable stones.
Although by saying this i am placing no importance whatsoever on me as
an individual collector or my own numbers as being valuable other than
to avoid the situation of misidentified or unidentified specimens in
the future. As only temporary custodians of our collections surely
making sure that our collections can easily be passed on without any
missing info is of prime importance?
Numbering specimens directly is surely the most foolproof method of
achieving this? All the labels on boxes/bags and display stands etc.
are meaningless when the specimen is removed. All the photos of the
specimen stored either in hard copy or digital form are subject to
being lost or destroyed. I know these are all extreme circumstances
and most of the time these steps that we take will be absolutely fine
as specimens stay with their displays/cards etc. but if there is a
possibility, however small of accidents happening should we not do
more?
As an example of the situation i want to avoid see the photo of the
orphaned stone in the article on a recent visit to the Manchester
museum (http://www.bimsociety.org/article-manchester.shtml) If this
had an original number on it it probably would not be in the situation
its in now. Its more than a distinct possibility that this is stone
from a historical fall and yet we may never know........
Anyway, some food for thought!
Cheers
Martin
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.1.0.447)
Database version: 6.14450
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.1.0.447)
Database version: 6.14450
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
