Bruce,

Seems like a separate field with sorting value maybe the best solution. It would require some extra work on your side but would allow Access and Excel people easily sort the list.

>That's a fair question, Sergey. My entire indexing question has been without much context, hasn't it? I didn't want to confuse people here even more with extraneous details, but maybe now it's important to say "why."
>
>The story is, that I don't need the Access index at all, as I use vfp for my hobby inventory and wantlists, sales lists, etc. I can use my ugly index or other means (like SQL), no problem.
>
>The problem is that there is a standard catalog in my hobby that uses the alphanumeric format and order like I posted, and many of my hobby-enthusiasts (stamp collectors) use Access for their inventory/wantlist DB. They've been searching for a way to order it in the standard catalog fashion for months, maybe years now, with no sucess except to use 2 or 3 fields for ordering the one catalog format, and even then it's a little tricky in Access to get ordering right. (Plus, it makes data input difficult to have split fields, aside from generating reports or simple screens for input and display.)
>
>My goal was to find the hobby Access-users a better way to sort using only one field, as that's what everyone wants, as I'm supposed to do this type of article in one or more of my hobby's magazines. But looks like I hit a wall here. Well, maybe I'll look at SQL a little, see if there are any ideas there I can publish instead. Back to the drawing board, as we say.
>
>There are also a lot of hobbyists that use Excel for their lists and also want a good 1-column sort order, but I figured Access would be easier to tackle first.
>
>Well, on the upside, this is all just a hobby, though money is involved buying & selling, but still, only a hobby...