Open Forum

Hello,

We have some objects that were mistakenly accessioned. My thoughts are to delete these object records in the database, to retain the paper object files, and "retire" those object numbers. It does not seem necessary to do formal deaccessioning. Would there be a reason to keep the numbers in the database with an empty record?

Thanks for your thoughts,

 Mary Douglas

Hello Mary,

In the cases you are describing, the objects were accessioned, mistakenly or not. Although you can use simple procedures to correct numbering and other everyday matters, the way to reverse accessioning is by deaccessioning. In former days, our museum deleted "accessioned in error" as a criterion for deaccessioning, because there had to be a reason why the object did not belong in the collection: poor condition; didn't fit the mission, etc. Maybe "accessioned in error" would suffice, since in our policies, we were required to explain and document every deaccession proposal that went to the board. Be that as it may, in my opinion, it would not be right to remove the object from the collection without the complete deaccession, leaving behind an empty record. In the past, on a few occasions I found references to objects that had once been in the museum collections, but the objects and their records were not to be found. It was frustrating, to say the least.

Best,

Bruce

Hello,

We have some objects that were mistakenly accessioned. My thoughts are to delete these object records in the database, to retain the paper object files, and "retire" those object numbers. It does not seem necessary to do formal deaccessioning. Would there be a reason to keep the numbers in the database with an empty record?

Thanks for your thoughts,

 Mary Douglas