[meteorite-list] Labeling specimens

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:47:59 -0800
Message-ID: <93aaac891002271547uc905177y3a3534fd98968a0d_at_mail.gmail.com>

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, info at niger-meteorite-recon.de
<info at 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" <edeckert at triad.rr.com>
> To: <countdeiro at earthlink.net>; "martin goff" <msgmeteorites at googlemail.com>;
> <meteorite-list at 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: <countdeiro at earthlink.net>
>> To: "martin goff" <msgmeteorites at googlemail.com>;
>> <meteorite-list at 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 <msgmeteorites at googlemail.com>
>>>>Sent: Feb 27, 2010 3:50 AM
>>>>To: meteorite-list at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sat 27 Feb 2010 06:47:59 PM PST