We ran XRF on a 17th-century mariner’s astrolabe this morning and the copper–zinc profile (about 22–25% Zn with trace Pb/Fe) aligns with Iberian latón ca. 1600, so we’ve revised the workshop attribution and added voyage-use context to the case label. Are others putting compositional and acquisition-date data on gallery labels, or keeping it to catalogs and object files?
And we’ve had good results adding a tiny ‘Methods’ line on the label — ‘XRF: Zn about 24% (latón); acquired 1958’ — and pushing spectra/trace details to a QR page, with the caveat that we only surface the acquisition year when it shapes provenance; do you have room for a QR or small icon?
, label real estate is brutal — since you got 22–25% Zn this morning, we’d do a two-number line: “≈24% Zn (XRF); acquired 1958” on the label and push trace Pb/Fe + spectra to a QR, building on @jameson_d92. Caveat: we drop the acquisition year if provenance’s still under review; do you run into sensitivity there?
I’ve found that including a brief note about the methodology can really enhance visitor interest. Mentioning the XRF process in your label could spark conversations. It’s fascinating how much detail can come from a simple scan, don’t you think?