Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 April 30

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 30

Old timey asset tags

If you have a piece of used equipment from the 70s or 80s, you probably know the asset tags I'm thinking of. It seems there was a tremendously popular style of asset tag that was a thick metallic foil with black printing.

I'd like to know where these came from. And how was the writing put on them? Was there a special label-making machine? Did the mechanics of that label-maker require that they all be foil instead of normal stickers? (Just as those old Dymo label from the same era had to be plastic because of how the label puncher worked.)

OR was it a style thing, to make them reminiscent of those really old tags of punched metal you might see on something from the 20s?

Nowadays asset tags are more likely to just be printed on a sheet of sticker paper out of an ordinary office printer, and can look like whatever the company's graphic designer wants them to look like. But those old black and silver tags all looked very similar. What's their story? ApLundell (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you link to an article and/or image that describes what you are talking about? μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he means something like this or this? --Jayron32 12:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have one on hand. (And if I had an article, I wouldn't need to ask for one.)

It's a subject that defies easy googling because the results are overwhelmed with people selling modern asset tags.

I know the really old tags were metal and the numbers were punched into them, but later ones seemed to all be foil, with numbers printed on them somehow.

Here's a historic example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjcfepTdvZI&t=22m28s

I'm curious why these were always black on foil, and how the numbers were printed on them in an era before ubiquitous computing.

ApLundell (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Long before computers came along, there were methods of printing consecutive sequence numbers. A simple example was a rubber stamp that had a set of digits as the stamp, with a mechanism vaguely like an odometer, so that every time you stamped something, a gear would move the next sequential digit or digits into place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with those, but a rubber stamp would not be suitable for use directly on these tags. But see below. ApLundell (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Read this: [1], to wit: "In 1953, a product was introduced to the industry to meet that challenge. Metalphoto® anodized photosensitized aluminum was invented by Horizons Incorporated (Horizons Research at that time) and introduced to the Navy as a labeling alternative to hand engraved brass and stainless steel labels and data plates." Wikipedia has an article titled Photosensitive Anodized Aluminum. --Jayron32 18:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

A ha! These are what I'm looking for.

Even with better search terms I can't seem to find pictures of vintage equipment for producing these, but the process is clear enough now. The institution would have a template made with blanks for the numbers, and then presumably numbers would be put on a clear sheet that could be stacked with the template. (Perhaps with a typewriter, or one of those stamps with number wheels like Bugs mentions.) Then they'd be placed under an intense UV light with a blank tag.

That all makes sense. And explains why all these tags had similar appearance, despite belonging to different institutions.

It also explains why they were always thin metal or foil. It was a vital part of the process. (I thought it might be a security feature. Like those stickers that delaminate if they're removed.)

Thank you much.

ApLundell (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• I know this is not my question, and if ApLundell is satisfied, then that's good. But I am still confused. Are these model/serial number tags that are embossed on the item itself? Or proof of purchase tags, which are separate from the item? I am used to seeing very small metallic tags (unlike the ones depicted) on old items, naming the manufacturer and, perhaps, model number. Is this a UK vs. US thing? μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the same technology was used for different types of tag.

I was specifically interested in the ones that are attached by the institution that owned the device. ("asset tags") They often include a department name, a company logo, and a serial number. You often see them attached to old equipment that was once owned by a university or hospital. I was curious how a place that was not a factory would make such professional looking tags.

But you're right, I've seen them from the manufacturer too. Now that you mention it, I think I've seen them on old stereos. ApLundell (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... I bring up the question because I have seen plenty of (pre 1960's) old items that have a brass plaque (it looks like brass) attached to an item (sold in the US) with a model number or serial number on the plaque. They do NOT look like the ones presented here, but they have the same information--model type and producer. So I am wondering, are we talking about separable receipts, or about attached labels. I have seen both, and am wondering if the question here is about attached labels that happen to be metallic, or about separable items that can be redeemed as proof of purchase. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Neither of the examples you're referring to seems to be the same the same thing as what ApLundell. The first example seems to be a label placed by the manufacturer, and the second either the manufacturer or seller. ApLudell is referring to a tag placed by the final purchaser, the institution (I presume could be a business, university, research institution etc) who owns the product to help in keeping track of the item etc. Our best articles are probably Asset tracking and Fixed assets management if you're still confused what an asset tag is. Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks, you've cleared it up for me. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Moped question

Hi, I want to calculate the total cost of ownership for a 49cc moped in Auckland, doing 125km/week. I guess that (after the initial purchase) there is depreciation, maintenance, petrol, insurance to pay for. Is there anything I've missed? How much are these likely to be? Petrol comes out at about NZ$20 per week, insurance is about NZ$200pa, does this sound about right? Any advice appreciated, best wishes Robinh (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Is parking and garaging free in Auckland? Are you going to wash it yourself? (this could be counted as maintenance.) Do you have to buy a helmet, jacket, facemask, safety gear, new wardrobe or accessories to go with it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Or, related to parking, can you expect to be regularly fined where you park it ? Some cities use this as a hidden tax, by making it illegal to park where you need to. One variation is to have parking meters with absurdly short maximum periods, so they can catch people who don't make it back in time. When they fine or arrest people for putting coins in the meters of other people, you know this is what the government is really up to. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Auckland Transport (part of the Council) provides free parking for motorcycles in the central city, both in designated parking spaces (most of which have time limits, typically three hours) and in the parking buildings they run, which have no time limits.[2]-gadfium 20:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm presuming you intend to drive the moped on public roads, in which case you seem to have forgotten about licensing it which would be about $164 a year, including the ACC levy [3]. Also do you actually have a class 1 or class 6 licence? If you don't, you'd probably need to consider the cost of obtaining one, and renewing it every 10 years. P.S. I assume you've considered the cost of registration of the moped as part of the initial purchase. P.P.S. [4] suggests your insurance figures are about right, although you probably should factor in the excess in some fashion i.e. by estimating how much you're likely to pay on average over the life of the moped. It could be less than one full excess depending. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

(OP). Thanks everyone. I had not realized that licencing was part of TCO at $164pa. I already have an appropriate driving license, and my work has employee parking in the CBD. So my biggest uncertainty is maintenance. Would servicing it once a year at NZ$150 sound about right? Robinh (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I once had one of those vehicles. But it wasn't very fast. It just kind of moped along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Back in my day, mopeds had bicycle pedals, so (in theory) your fuel cost could be zero (e.g: Honda P50). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC) —Without pedals, shouldn't it just be called a "mo"?

I thought of toll roads, but there is only one in the Auckland region, and it's well to the north of the Auckland suburban area. Also, the nature of your question seems to imply that you'll be doing a workday commute from much closer to the Auckland CBD. I even have a suspicion that mopeds are forbidden from motorways. Anyway, that's the situation with regard to toll road fees, in case anyone else was thinking of mentioning them. Akld guy (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The New York State drivers manual says mopeds are forbidden from what you call motorways. This may be a common thing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, in New Zealand a moped is not required to be regularly inspected for a Warrant of Fitness (WoF) inspection, which all other road vehicles are required to pass and display the sticker thereof, and no special license is required to drive one; all other license classes are adequate. Refer "Differences between mopeds and motorcycles" chart. Akld guy (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You're correct on the WoF, hence I didn't mention it. On the motorway point, you are correct they are generally considered forbidden although [5] suggests there's no specific rule as if January 2011. But their speed limit would generally mean their use would be unsafe and so caught up in such general rules. Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(OP) thanks again everyone. I hadn't factored in a WoF (I can't quite believe that a moped doesn't need an MOT). And I didn't mention it, but I am indeed commuting from the Eastern Suburbs to the CBD 5 days a week. Bottom line is that TCO for a moped is about the same as getting the bus in every day, which currently costs me $31.50 per week. Hmm. thanks! Robinh (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

According to the Moped article, the top speed of these things is often below the minimum speed required on Interstate Highways, which would implicitly exclude them even if a given state's laws don't explicitly do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If you read the ref I posted earlier and scroll down to the chart at "Differences between mopeds and motorcycles", you'll see that in NZ a moped is defined as having a top speed of 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph). Such a low maximum speed would be extremely hazardous on NZ motorways, most of which have speed limits of 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph), and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a regulation elsewhere forbidding motorway use. Akld guy (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)