Am I the only person on this list that considers signatures to be a 
quaint but effectively meaningless anachronism?

To illustrate my point, try this experiment: Next time you're in a 
restaurant paying for a meal by credit card*, ask one of your dining 
companions to sign the bill with an unintelligible squiggly line, and 
see if either the waiter or the credit card company queries the transaction.

Has anyone considered Computer-Output Microfilm (COM) an alternative 
approach to producing an archival-quality hard-copy accession register?

T.
--
* Of course, this assumes that it's not all "chip & pin" in the UK 
now (chip & pin doesn't exist here in the U.S.). But the fact that 
banks are moving away from signatures as a means of authentication 
demonstrates my point anyway.


At 09:43 AM 2007-01-19, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>We started producing hard copies of our collections database last 
>year to fulfil the requirement for a hard copy accession register. 
>We came across a few issues with this, one of which concerns the 
>longevity of printing on archival paper.
>
>There is a test that is carried out in Archives to test the copy 
>quality, called the Peel test, which involves testing whether the 
>ink adheres to the paper or transfers to some sticky tape 
>(http://www.archives.gov/preservation/technical/peel-test.html?template=print 
>) We found that using Archival quality paper and standard Laserjet 
>ink, the copies did not pass the archival quality test. However, 
>despite the standard requiring 'records should be printed out on 
>archival quality paper using a durable print medium', the MDA could 
>not advise about paper and ink to produce these, although they did 
>send us a copy of a report on 'Laser printing toner, comparative 
>long-term stability' by T.M.A. Ogilvie, Conservator of Antiquities, 
>Bristol Museums, June 2005.
>
>We are taking the 'sign each page' approach for the print outs, as 
>we will be binding them either at the end of the year for the 
>current accessions, or when we've processed a couple of years for 
>the backlog, so they won't be bound as soon as they're edited; not 
>so bad for month by month print outs, but for the longer ones, a bit 
>of a task for the person signing them!
>
>Sian
>
>Sian Woodward
>IT Officer & Cataloguer (Collections)
>
>
>The British Postal Museum & Archive
>Freeling House
>Phoenix Place
>London WC1X 0DL
>
>T 020 7239 2560
>F 020 7239 2576
>
>E [log in to unmask]
>
>Visit our website: www.postalheritage.org.uk
>
>British postal communications helped to shape the modern world. The 
>British Postal Museum & Archive illuminates the lives of people in 
>the Post Office, the messages carried by Royal Mail, the history we 
>all share. Our history through the post.
>
>The BPMA is the public identity of the Postal Heritage Trust.
>Registered as a charity in England and Wales.
>Registered Charity Number 1102360
>Company Number 4896056
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>Of Michael Cooper
>Sent: Friday 19 January 2007 11:47
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Printing a digital accession register
>
>Hello chaps
>
>Is there anyone out there with experience of printing an archival 
>copy of a digital accession register? We have recently completed 
>(what turned out to be) a six-year project to generate and reconcile 
>a retrospective register of our natural history museum acquisitions 
>1867 to 2006. It's the biggest documentation project we've completed 
>since our major collections inventory of 1991-1995 (the humanities 
>reconciliation is still in train...)
>
>My plan is to have it printed in sets ("signatures") of 16 or 32 
>pages up on 8 or 16 sheets of A3 archival paper (depends if we can 
>find a networked printer to do this) and then have these sewn and 
>hard bound. My difficulty arises in ways to guarantee its authority. 
>I *could* sign every page (MDA suggest this), but at 750 pages I 
>would get RSI. An alternative suggestion I have seen is to have the 
>first and last pages signed off.
>
>Any thoughts on this?
>
>thanks
>
>Mick
>
>Michael P. Cooper
>Nottingham Museums Registrar
>tel.: +44 (0)115 915 3671
>fax : +44 (0)115 915 3601
>
>If you'd like to receive online news alerts from Nottingham City 
>Council, visit www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/noticenottingham/news_feeds.htm
>
>This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content
>and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal.
>
>This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
>views which are not the views of Nottingham City Council unless specifically
>stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system,
>do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
>on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that Nottingham City
>Council monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
>signify your consent to this.
>
>**************************************************
>For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, 
>visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
>**************************************************
>
>**************************************************
>For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, 
>visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
>**************************************************


Cheers,

T.  

**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************