What I have seen with this stock is more loss of lubricant, or LOL, or lol!
I really like your thinking here Eric, as I can see you have really thought
about it and worked with it.
As others have said, there can be problems with each method, attaching like
with like, and documenting with leader, details, eventually the lose of a
tape and the information if it is not well documented, etc.
I would love to separate it all into stock parts and document that but the
reality is....time and person power. Do we actually have the time to do all
of this? This would also involve for our archive, discussing at great
length a new file format to deal with this as it now becomes more that one
object. These objects have already been alloted a numbering system, as a
single file (if they have been preserved).. Also, do we house them
together? This also involves somehow extending the shelving, which is
already tight, to fit the 'extra tapes' in.
Archivally and considering the integrity of what we deal with, I believe the
practise is to leave it the way it is, but document it thoroughly, which I
am sure we all hope, wish and have great hopes in, will remain in the
metadata we are presently creating. (fingers crossed!).
However, there are problems faced by archives and perhaps not places who do
not already have a system in place and there are great resources for them to
go to with ARSC and IASA and FACET, etc.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:35 PM, George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> with reference to his earlier posting
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Best practice: mixed acetate and polyester reels
> sticky shed
> Date sent: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:08:48 -0700
> - and in response to several responses on the list
> Eric Jacobs wrote:
> > Anyway, I don't want to persevere on the tape type too much, and
> > would rather focus on the best way to process an acetate/polyester
> > reel with "sticky" tape in the mix.
> ----- Eric, people respond to what they can relate to and where they
> they can provide useful input. It does not appear that those who are
> concerned with the nitty-gritty of treating tape types are necessarily
> who have a philosophical view of what is to be done with our heritage in
> long run. The authenticity and authentication issues I brought up in my
> response almost never feature in preservation discussions, except in
> work. Undoing splices is one of the grossest attacks on the integrity of a
> linear file (which a tape is). I remember my movie projectionist days: a
> had split in several places and at the time you lost one frame for each
> splice. I put the film back together for screening, and--oh, shame--a
> sequence of a man climbing ladders to paste a huge poster was suddenly
> showing a man rocketing and plummeting and working on several sheets at
> I had to take the film apart again and find the correct sequence. Losing
> several frames.
> Kind regards,