Open Forum

Hello,

I'm hoping someone might be able to lend advice on a dilemma at hand. The institution I work for is in the process of creating our first collection catalog and as of now, we are about 4 years into its creation. However, it was recently discovered that a specific portion of the collection had its acquisition miss dated. Our lawyer is handling the supporting documents; however, it is the accession number that has me a bit stumped. The first unit of the number is the acquisition date. Meaning, the accession number will need to be changed and documented.  Has anyone had this problem before and, if so, how was it handled? Are there any articles or tips on best practices for documenting the changes? Any help is very much appreciated. 

Best, 
Sarah

------------------------------
Sarah Dickerson
Collections Manager
------------------------------

Hi Sarah:

As far as the accession number goes, I would probably leave it the same if it were me. The number is just something used internally to track the object and in my opinion, doesn't have much significance beyond that.  It'll be easier for you and if the objects are marked, better for them because you won't be removing the numbers and remarking them.  What really matters is that the paperwork is in order.

Thanks,

------------------------------
Geoffrey Woodcox
Assistant Curator of Collections
State Historical Society of North Dakota
Bismarck ND
------------------------------

Hi Sarah - 

Sounds like you have a classic "double accession" and that's great that you caught an error, as it happens to all of us in our collections. There are a couple of factors that you need to consider when changing/reconciling the accession number of a collection - 

- Do you have proof of what the true/correct number ought to be (donation paperwork, signed Deeds of Gift, correspondence, etc)?

- Can you account for ALL items within the collection?

- Do you know how the error occurred (sometimes less important, but important nonetheless)?

- What is your institution's value on the accession number?  Within the majority of the profession, these are seen as the date by which the museum/institution took legal possession of the objects and do help establish the catalog numbering. Errors in this numbering can have a trickle down effect which can be a pain to unravel, so I would recommend that you try to restore the actual numbers to the collection. 

With your lawyer handling the supporting documents, does the typo in the accession number affect someone's ability to claim the donation as a tax write-off? (I have no idea but it may be worth asking). 

Assuming that you have proof of a typo and need to revert to its original/true accession number, first, I would gather all of the paperwork that you have to determine the proper accession number, and then gather all of the objects to ensure every piece is accounted for. Then, you'll need to write a memo (ours here is "From the Registrar" and copies are kept in each accession and catalog folder) documenting the error: when it occurred, how you resolved it, etc.. and include proper "legalese" from the help of your lawyer. 

Then you'll have to make sure all of the accession and catalog folders have a copy of the memo in their records and change your database records to reflect the change in accession numbers -- I highly recommend making a note in the database that this was double accession with "XXX" -- redundancy of this nature is a collection manager's friend! Our database, EMu, can also change the status of the record to "Double Accession" which is attached to the "dead" number (however some of us find that confusing). 

Finally, if any of the objects have been physically marked, you'll need to change those ASAP or at least re-tag them. 

It's a pain in the butt fixing double accessions, but once you've caught them you should reconcile them ASAP -- your future self will thank you! 

Good luck!

------------------------------
Carrie Bowers
Museum Specialist
National Museum of the Marine Corps
Triangle VA
------------------------------

Sarah, I think that Geoffrey and Carrie made good points about how you might proceed in dealing with the mis-numbering of some items in your museum's collection. It is helpful that your attorney is dealing with any legal ramifications pertaining to that matter, but to my mind the accession number is mostly a matter of convenience, as Geoffrey suggested. I can't envision any legal problems with an error in numbering -- that's more a matter of housekeeping. However, it could be confusing for someone in a few years dealing with collections matters and assuming that the accession numbers are accurate indications of when objects came into the collection, without checking the accession date in each record.

That's when the matter of convenience becomes inconvenient -- imagine your own scenario. As long as you follow Carrie's advice to document changes in accession numbers, you have nothing to fear... well, as long as you don't fear changing the numbers on all the incorrectly-numbered items. However, you can be assured that your successors in managing the collection will regard you as the best thing since acid-free paper, for all the work you put in to make things right. So, if you do not have the time, take the easy way (for now), as most of us would choose, while riding herd on a myriad of other projects. If you do have the time, fixing it all, right and proper, would be an outstanding choice.

Best,
Bruce

------------------------------
Bruce MacLeish
Curator Emeritus, Newport Restoration Foundation
Newport RI
------------------------------

Thanks for the responses. Carrie, to answer your questions. Yes to the first four and no to number five. Basically, what it boils down to at this point (excluding the lawyer's part in it) is making sure the number is correct. Call me OCD or anal-retentive, but I'd like to fix the mistake in the numbers on all items (files and objects). Since we aren't finished cataloging, I'm afraid something might come up in the future that will need to be added to this collection. Does anyone else wonder if their collection items are cleverly disguised nesting dolls? I don't want to have two separate numbers floating around or continue using the wrong one. I'm dreading the task of renumbering but it's the lesser of the two evils at hand and we don't have a deadline beyond sooner than later. Should creating a letter explaining the mistake and the subsequent changes made be sufficient (then add to each file)?

------------------------------
Sarah Dickerson
Collections Manager
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 02-21-2018 04:25 PM
From: Bruce MacLeish
Subject: Accession Number Corrections

Sarah, I think that Geoffrey and Carrie made good points about how you might proceed in dealing with the mis-numbering of some items in your museum's collection. It is helpful that your attorney is dealing with any legal ramifications pertaining to that matter, but to my mind the accession number is mostly a matter of convenience, as Geoffrey suggested. I can't envision any legal problems with an error in numbering -- that's more a matter of housekeeping. However, it could be confusing for someone in a few years dealing with collections matters and assuming that the accession numbers are accurate indications of when objects came into the collection, without checking the accession date in each record.

That's when the matter of convenience becomes inconvenient -- imagine your own scenario. As long as you follow Carrie's advice to document changes in accession numbers, you have nothing to fear... well, as long as you don't fear changing the numbers on all the incorrectly-numbered items. However, you can be assured that your successors in managing the collection will regard you as the best thing since acid-free paper, for all the work you put in to make things right. So, if you do not have the time, take the easy way (for now), as most of us would choose, while riding herd on a myriad of other projects. If you do have the time, fixing it all, right and proper, would be an outstanding choice.

Best,
Bruce

------------------------------
Bruce MacLeish
Curator Emeritus, Newport Restoration Foundation
Newport RI
------------------------------

Sarah,

I have always subscribed to the practice that unless you need to change a number, don't. If Carrie has interpreted your question correctly and the error has resulted in the same number being applied to more than one group of objects then yes, I'm afraid that may be a situation where correction is needed. However, if the issue is just that the accession number is now misleading at first glance as to the year the object came into the collection, I would not consider that a reason to change it. Documentation should certainly be generated to indicate when the objects did become part of the collection (if that is known) but renumbering all of your objects is usually not advisable. It is massively time-consuming and, unless you can track down every scrap of existing documentation to notate the change, you will inevitably cause more confusion by having an object identified by more than one number.

As a fellow collections person, I certainly understand the desire for things to be orderly and accurate. It drives me crazy that one of my predecessors (bless the hearts of well-meaning but untrained volunteer staff!) decided the best way to identify something as FIC was to assign it the accession number 1963.001 since 1963 was a year that our organization was between homes and not collecting, ergo, no duplication issue. We now have hundreds of photographs that, according to the accession number, appear to have been collected in 1963 - even ones that were clearly taken in the 1980s or later! This annoys me to no end but it's not worth the sweat equity to go back and change it all, assuming we could even do so cleanly without causing even more confusion. We simply make a note that anything found with this accession number can be considered an FIC and try to ignore the part of our brains that is screaming.

Whatever you decide/need to do, I wish you smooth sailing (as much as possible) and want you to know you are not alone. With the changing collections management standards over the years compounded by staff overturn (who were themselves often of inconsistent training and expertise), many many museums of all sizes have to deal with situations like this. And to answer your most recent question, yes, a record of what you did/what is going on with the collection should be made. We keep a whole Collections Managment binder of exactly these types of things to maintain the institutional memory and we also try to keep a copy of any pertinent notes in the accession folders and/or our collections database. It's a Sisyphean task but caring for our material culture so we can remember who we are and our place in history is worth it! (It has to be otherwise its one heck of a weird job!)

Good Luck!

------------------------------
Michelle Nash
Curator of Collections
Elkhart County Historical Museum
Bristol IN
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 02-22-2018 11:39 AM
From: Sarah Dickerson
Subject: Accession Number Corrections

Thanks for the responses. Carrie, to answer your questions. Yes to the first four and no to number five. Basically, what it boils down to at this point (excluding the lawyer's part in it) is making sure the number is correct. Call me OCD or anal-retentive, but I'd like to fix the mistake in the numbers on all items (files and objects). Since we aren't finished cataloging, I'm afraid something might come up in the future that will need to be added to this collection. Does anyone else wonder if their collection items are cleverly disguised nesting dolls? I don't want to have two separate numbers floating around or continue using the wrong one. I'm dreading the task of renumbering but it's the lesser of the two evils at hand and we don't have a deadline beyond sooner than later. Should creating a letter explaining the mistake and the subsequent changes made be sufficient (then add to each file)?

------------------------------
Sarah Dickerson
Collections Manager
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 02-21-2018 04:25 PM
From: Bruce MacLeish
Subject: Accession Number Corrections

Sarah, I think that Geoffrey and Carrie made good points about how you might proceed in dealing with the mis-numbering of some items in your museum's collection. It is helpful that your attorney is dealing with any legal ramifications pertaining to that matter, but to my mind the accession number is mostly a matter of convenience, as Geoffrey suggested. I can't envision any legal problems with an error in numbering -- that's more a matter of housekeeping. However, it could be confusing for someone in a few years dealing with collections matters and assuming that the accession numbers are accurate indications of when objects came into the collection, without checking the accession date in each record.

That's when the matter of convenience becomes inconvenient -- imagine your own scenario. As long as you follow Carrie's advice to document changes in accession numbers, you have nothing to fear... well, as long as you don't fear changing the numbers on all the incorrectly-numbered items. However, you can be assured that your successors in managing the collection will regard you as the best thing since acid-free paper, for all the work you put in to make things right. So, if you do not have the time, take the easy way (for now), as most of us would choose, while riding herd on a myriad of other projects. If you do have the time, fixing it all, right and proper, would be an outstanding choice.

Best,
Bruce

------------------------------
Bruce MacLeish
Curator Emeritus, Newport Restoration Foundation
Newport RI