From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 10:42:40, Richard Smith    
   wrote:   
   []   
   >The common theme in what I've read seems to be to avoid plastic which   
   >traps moisture, allowing mould to develop.  Use acid-free paper folders   
   >and cardboard document boxes.   
      
   Certainly that's what the archivists I know go for.   
      
   >  Prefer folders over envelopes, especially when the envelopes are only   
   >just big enough, as they can damage documents as you move the them in   
   >and out of their envelopes.  If you still have the original envelope or   
   >package the document came in, keep it, but not with the document inside   
   >it if is not ideal.  If you need a way of keeping a folder closed and   
   >the document secure in it, use string or ribbon.  Keep the documents   
   >flat where possible, rather than rolled or folded.   Don't use tape or   
   >glue anywhere near the documents.   
   >   
   >Label the outside of the boxes and envelopes so you don't need to open   
   >them to find out what is inside.   
      
   Possibly even stick a thumbnail of the document(s) on the outside of the   
   box as well. (Maybe keep a full-size printed copy of the document with   
   it, so that can be looked at, and the original not taken out of its   
   acid-free folder unless necessary - though that will obviously add to   
   the space needed.)   
      
   >  Where feasible, digitise as many documents as possible.  If they can   
   >safely be opened flat, then use a flatbed scanner; otherwise photograph   
   >them in good light.  Don't use a sheetfeed scanner or copier on old or   
   >fragile documents.   
      
   Mostly, agree - certainly the bare document and the feed mechanism of a   
   sheetfeed scanner do not go well together. However, there may be cases   
   ... say the document has a vigorous curl that just won't lie flat, or   
   simply is very long and you don't have a long enough scanner; in the   
   latter case, probably best to scan (or photograph) it in sections (and   
   stitch them together in software if you're good at that), but there   
   might be cases where a sheetfeed scanner can be used - by using the flat   
   transparent envelopes/folders sold for the purpose; I'm not suggesting   
   leaving them in those, but just while scanning.   
      
   [For _small_ items, I've found the "mouse scanners" quite good - though   
   the real power there is in the driver software that does the stitching.   
   I certainly wouldn't - I think - try to use them for the A3 size they   
   claim to be able to go up to!]   
      
   My own experience with feed-mechanism scanners (on documents that aren't   
   particularly fragile) is that it's difficult to keep the document   
   straight; I haven't tried a desktop machine, though, only the portable   
   type (which I've always thought would be useful if I was visiting   
   someone else's home, and wanted to scan something they didn't want to   
   let leave their house but had a scanner).   
      
   Another option with a won't-lie-flat is a big sheet of glass to hold it   
   flat: I think I've been known to borrow a sliding door out of a cupboard   
   or bookcase. Obviously only any use if you have a suitable area of floor   
   or desk to lie the document, then glass, on to photograph it, and you   
   need to watch for lighting and reflections (no point in using flash on   
   the camera). Obviously, be careful handling a big sheet of glass: this   
   is where sliding bookshelf doors are good as they've usually already got   
   bevelled edges, though still of course be careful of breakage. (If it   
   has "handles" that are just recesses ground into the glass, also watch   
   that those don't lie over an important (ideally, any) part of the   
   document. (If any fixings - such as hinges - be careful not to damage   
   the document with them; ideally remove them.)   
      
   >  If the nature of document isn't immediately apparent from a cursory   
   >glance, consider faintly labelling it in pencil, perhaps on the back.   
   >Even if its box, folder or envelope is labelled, documents can get   
   >separated from their containers and muddled up.  You may know who that   
   >photo is of and be able to put back in its correct place if you drop a   
   >dozen photos on the floor, but will your next of kin?   
      
   Put them in albums if possible! Ideally in a removable way, such as   
   photo corners, so they can be removed and scanned subsequently. But only   
   if you write next to them what they are (ideally names, dates, and   
   places). If this isn't likely to be done soon, then as Richard says,   
   lightly pencil whatever you know on the back. (What you _know_; if   
   unsure, add appropriate words like maybe, perhaps, or probably; if you   
   don't, you - or someone else - will later assume that was fact.)   
   >   
   >Consider keeping the most valuable material in a fire resistant filing   
   >cabinet, and keep irreplaceable archive material separate from your   
   >working notes, photocopied records, and so on.  At some point your work   
   >may be inherited by someone with no interest in genealogy.  Your aim   
   >should be to make it easy for them to identify the material that a   
   >library or archive centre might accept.  So be selective, especially   
   >with photos.  Identify a few, carefully chosen photos of each member of   
   >your family to go in irreplaceable part of your archive.  If you have   
   >hundreds of old family photos, consider putting them in separate photo albums.   
   >   
   >Richard   
      
   All good stuff this!   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   If it jams - force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)