A durable serialized tag bound to one physical asset for inventory, audit, and inspection history.
2 products · substrates: anodised aluminium, polyester, destructible vinyl
A durable serialised plate or label bound to one physical asset, carrying a code rather than a history. The tag is an index entry: the record it points at lives elsewhere and can grow without the tag changing.
Choose an asset tag when the thing you need is identity rather than a maintenance log - inventory, audit, insurance, and knowing which of forty identical units you are holding. Choose destructible stock when removal itself is the thing to prevent.
The numbering scheme, decided before the first tag is printed. Codes allocated per purchase order rather than per asset produce collisions the day you order a second batch, and by then the first batch is already on the equipment.
AST-ALU-BAR
Sequential serial plus barcode and QR. Bound to one asset for its whole service life.
Substrate Anodised aluminium Size 2in x 1in Fits IT assets Serialized Yes
In stock
$1.13/ unit
100 $1.13
250 $1.01
500 $0.91
1,000 $0.84
AST-DEST-VIN
Fragments if lifted, so a removed tag is obvious. Used where chain of custody matters.
Substrate Destructible vinyl Size 1.5in x 0.75in Fits IT assets Serialized Yes
In stock
$0.39/ unit
250 $0.39
500 $0.35
1,000 $0.31
2,500 $0.29
An asset tag identifies a thing rather than recording work on it, which changes what matters. Consistency of placement across the estate matters more than the tag itself, because an estate labelled in a consistent position can be audited by walking a row and one labelled wherever there was space cannot. Beyond that, the decision is whether you need tamper evidence: a standard tag identifies, a tamper evident one also shows if it has been moved between assets, which matters where the tag is doing inventory duty on equipment that walks. Removability is the other axis, since assets are disposed of and a tag that leaves adhesive residue is a problem at resale.
Asset registers diverge from reality within months, and the mechanism is always the same: the tag is applied at receipt and the register is updated afterwards, if at all. Binding the tag to a record at production closes that gap, because the identifier exists in the record before it exists on the asset. The value shows up at the two moments a spreadsheet is always wrong, which are redeployment and disposal. A scan tells you what the asset is and where it has been, without depending on whether somebody remembered to update a row.
The record mechanics are the same for every artifact and are set out on how inspection records work.
Proof, payment, production, then a tracking number when it ships. Tags arrive serialised, so the workflow is to apply one at receipt and scan it, which is the only reliable moment to capture an asset. Order against expected intake for the year rather than against the installed base, because running out means an unlabelled asset entering the estate, and that is the gap a register never recovers from. Reorders pull the same numbering scheme forward so sequences stay contiguous.
The full sequence, including what the proof shows and how approval works, is on how ordering works.
In a consistent position across the whole estate. This matters far more than it sounds: consistent placement means an audit is a walk down a row, while inconsistent placement means handling every item. The decision costs nothing at the start and recurs forever afterwards.
Tamper evident where the tag is doing inventory duty on equipment that moves or where you need to know if it has been transferred between assets. Standard is sufficient for fixed equipment and is cheaper. The premium is only worth paying where reassignment is a real risk.
Against expected intake across the year rather than the installed base, since the reliable moment to label is receipt. Running out means an unlabelled asset entering the estate, and unlabelled assets are exactly the ones that go missing from the register permanently.