Wesley M. Thorsson wrote:
 
> For the shells without data slips, the only saving grace was that each
> data slip had an ID number on it and the shells had an ID, usually in
> ink on rag paper pasted on the shell, but sometimes directly written on
> the shell.  All that remains is the jig saw puzzle of matching shells to
> data slips when one is available.
>
> All going to demonstrate the wisdom of marking shells directly and
> including the ID number on a data slip, in stead of just putting the
> data slip inside the shell as I have done in my collection.
 
This sounds like a good plan. When I worked at a museum we used to paint a
small label on an object with clear nail polish, and then write the
catalogue number on this label with India ink if a light object, or white
ink if a dark object. We used a crow quill or mapping pen for this task.
Afterward, another coat of nail polish was applied to seal the number. Of
course, each application must be allowed to dry completely before the next.
 
I would also suggest including your initials as well as the number, so that
future collectors or scholars can know the exact provenance. If shells are
later traded, it begs the qustion whether the new collector should also
apply their own number or record the previous number and replace it with
their own. Such labels can be removed with acetone or laquer thinner.
 
Will this method be safe for shells?
 
Is this a good practice commercially, or will it reduce the value of any
shell? I know it is expected with such things as stone tools, but it is not
done with coins.
 
Cheers,
 
John Hooker
--
 
We need articles for Pan!
http://www.cadvision.com/hooker-perron/index.htm
mailto:[log in to unmask]