posted 09-08-2008 12:58 PM            

I'd like to catalogue my collection with something more sophisticated than a Word document or Excel spreadsheet; been playing with trying to set up a database using Filemaker, but that's been awfully time-consuming and frustrating for the fit-and-start way I've been going about this.

I've just stumbled across a software package called Collectify, and I have to say it looks very appealing. Seems to have all the functions I would want and looks reasonably user-friendly. Apparently Chubb gives it to their high-end customers. Do any of you have any experience with it? I've searched around for reviews, and haven't found much.

posted 09-08-2008 03:57 PM            

So we went the full data base route and bought Microsoft Office - the full one with Microsoft Access Data Base . (We wanted Word and a spreadsheet anyhow) My version was '97 and it needed some tweaking by a serious "nerd" when we transferred to XP but otherwise all can be done by human beings

Microsoft Access proved just what was needed.
In particular you can have photos and drawings embedded and the thing can be easily altered as you find new requirements. The only thing I've never fathomed out is how to insert hyperlinks (so one record can say "see XXX" and you jump to that).

The learning curve is difficult and steep - the program takes NO prisoners - but fortunately I had limited hair when I started.

My silver buckle database took a long time before I was satisfied with it, but setting up two data bases for my wife's collections took a matter of a few hours - and most of that was agreeing what she needed/wanted.

I would seriously recommend to anyone that custom build is the way to go. But experiment on a simple project first - do not go straight to your main requirement. During the learning process your requirements will rapidly grow as you find the capabilities of a really good database.

In particular you can learn from your own data - once its properly and easily available

Good luck.

A few notes on the database for the curious.

The first , very small , initials field is for easy searching by makers mark . "PB" will find "P.B" "IB/PB" as well as "PB".

Reference Number 17AB indicates a pair. Current accession number is 810 ! The Printer symbol enables me to print just that record. Size is measured around the curve and the cross axial size quoted first .

Records of cost, source, and current insurance value are held on the database, but not displaced on the form. When giving someone a copy I make a duplicate file, then delete that data before copying .

posted 09-08-2008 05:56 PM            

This sort of thing was what I had in mind when I dove into FileMaker. The more I thought about the project, the more I realized that I really would like to include features that started to make the project too complicated for me (at least while I have a full time job!): I wanted to be able to add multiple photographs; to cross-reference records related to makers; include cost info (acquisition, insurance appraisals, etc)in such a way that I could hide the info if I were showing off my collection ; to include literature references; add genealogical info; do searches that require a relational database.....well, you get the picture.

What is interesting about Collectify (and I don't want to hype it, especially since I haven't tried it yet) is that it seems to make all that possible. It was developed by people in the museum/arts/curatorial field. So it allows you to pick templates for various kinds of collections (silver, paintings, wine, books, whatever) and then automatically offers fields that are relevant. And apparently it's easily customized if you want to modify them.

Again, I'm leery of inappropriate hyping on our site, but if anyone is curious, the site is www.collectify.com. I would love to hear from a user.

posted 09-09-2008 12:36 PM            

Why not try it and let us know how you get on ?
Apparently you can use for a month, then, if you are happy pay what to me seems a very reasonable sum to prevent it disappearing so you do not even waste the time spent on starting data entry.

What in UK we call a "Suck it and See"

posted 09-09-2008 08:39 PM            

I have been using a basic spreadsheet so far, so this topic is very interesting. I watched the video on the Collectify website and saw that they base their software on something called the Getty Object ID guidelines, which I am sure some if not most of you are familiar. So after a quick search I came up with the website ( [dead link]) to find out about this system. Seems like you could use these guidelines to create your own, which solves some problems in my previous attempts to create a database own my own. There are also links on the website to books (also online) that go into greater detail. I haven't read thru them all yet but so far it seems pretty promising.

Robert

posted 09-10-2008 09:42 AM            

As I think I've written before when this has come up, and as I always tell students and others I consult with, the most important thing is to think through your data before you start coding. Think about everything you might want to record and all the possible variables and how you can best represent them. I still start with mock-ups in pencil-on-paper for anything complicated or very different from previous projects, but that may just be because I learned data coding (which is what collection cataloging is, at its core) many years ago when the computers you'd use were mainframes and their time was expensive....

Oh - and there's a new scaled-down database from the makers of Filemaker called Bento that might be right for this kind of project. I looked at it last winter when it came out and decided it wasn't robust enough for my professional collections (20,000 + objects of all sorts, from lower paleolithic tools to late-20th century beads). Can't remember now what features it lacked that gave me concern, but they may well not apply to a more thematic collection. It's very reasonably priced. too.

And finally, a basic philosophical position: use general-purpose software when possible rather than custom-written to a particular purpose. It's less likely to become obsolete and leave you with data in a form that's hard to transfer to something else. Learned this one watching firms work with custom designed packages for archaeologists back in the '80s, most of whom were eventually left high and dry when the company folded or changed focus.

posted 09-10-2008 04:33 PM            

Hence the appeal of this Collectify program, which seems to have all the bells and whistles I was looking for. And so I'm tempted to "suck it and see" (thank you, Clive! ) in a week or so when my work load lifts a bit. I will certainly report back.

That said, I am very conscious of the inherent commonsense in your advice about using general-purpose industry standards. I know this one saves everything in proprietary formats.