Hello, Matthew,
It's OK to work out your organization's own protocols, and you should go with whatever is logical for your own organization. However, using a standard system in a standard way will create least confusion in the long term.
There are misunderstandings about what tripartite numbering means and how it is applied in collections. Based on the system as applied in most museums, here are my comments:
1) As it is normally applied, the "middle block" of numbers in a tripartite scheme is important information and not at all arbitrary. This number represents the accession transaction, a group of items that were acquired and registered, from the same source and (generally) at the same time.
2) While I think it's great for single objects, and with associating objects in parts and sets, tripartite may not be the system you want to use for folders of your archival materials, photo collections, etc. The exception would be if the physical folders themselves each represent a separate accession. Look into archival cataloging practice for the best way to manage such material. A museum does not need to have the same numbering scheme for archival material as for objects, and many CM systems easily handle both.
3) I recommend against changing historic numbers, previously assigned by your organization, simply to comply with a new numbering scheme. The exception is in the case of duplicate numbers. You will save headaches down the line with future staff puzzling out different number systems. And physically renumbering objects is labor-intensive and adds to unnecessary handling. Again, your CM system should be able to handle multiple numbering schemes.
4) In the case in which an object, or group of objects, has no prior number; you don't know when or where the museum acquired the object (or object was "found in collection") -- or you don't have records of when, or if, it was ever formally accessioned -- I would generally not use the current calendar year you are recataloging it as the first component of a tripartite number.
For such objects, many institutions use a prefix that cannot be confused with a calendar date, such as "1000". For example 1000.1.1-3, meaning: 1) an old acquisition for an unknown year, 2) the first known acquisition from a particular donor 3) a group of three objects.
This number can be thought of as temporary, and may eventually change, should documentation turn up, at which time it can be formally accessioned. Or it can live long-term with this number, should its source remain a mystery. At least you have a functional number for your database the item is trackable, and the number itself is a flag that there are questions about its history or status.
5) Don't let old cataloguing issues drag down your current accessioning; use . Save your 2022 numbers for objects which are fully documented and fully accessioned in 2022 (even if they were acquired earlier). Keep that process current and don't let new accessions backlog. Keep any back-numbering a separate project.
Good luck.
--
Batja Bell
(she/her)
(office) 973-761-4090
(mobile/text) 862-205-7029