An interesting article about another hobby

[steve B]

Somewhat long, but it's interesting to me since it involves some of the same things we discuss from time to time.

There's history, technical stuff about the collectible, and a controversy that keeps coming back even after a century.

It also involves technology and PSE which is the Stamp side of PSA.

http://www.linns.com/en/insights/us-stamps-and-postal-history/2015/july/_the-stamp-of-controversy--the-1917-unwatermarked-30c-orange-fra.html


Steve B

[PolarBear]

Sorry, I couldn't get past the headline without losing consciousness.

"‘The stamp of controversy’: the 1917 unwatermarked 30¢ orange Franklin stamp, perforated 10"

[steve B]

I'm not surprised. If you're not into it, it's about as dull and complicated as it gets.

Anyway, capsule summary. Realized it was a bit long still, but can't make it any shorter.

Watermarked paper was used to help prevent people from faking stamps.
Except that it wasn't all that effective.
(Took them a bit over 20 years to figure that out)
They also played around with how many holes were in between stamps.
About the time they abandoned watermarks they changed the number of holes.

They said they didn't make any 30cent stamps with a particular combination.

Except a couple sheets were found.
Or maybe not -
The dealers that didn't get any didn't believe they were real.

Now, PSE says the variable light thingamajig shows a watermark, but won't say what settings they use. Or where they think the watermarks are.
If that was known, since it's marked on each one where it was on the sheet the assumed watermarks could be matched up with the known pattern and verified or disproved.

So so far they have decertified 5 expensive stamps and recertified them as the fairly cheap variety. (3250 vs 260 catalog value)

Steve B

[Eric72]

I found the article to be fascinating. Of particular interest to me was the following line:

"For wet watermark detection, many experts prefer to use Ronsonol brand lighter fluid, which is both toxic and flammable."

So, some collectors put their stamps in direct contact with lighter fluid? That simply amazes me. I imagine it does not damage the stamp, or else collectors wouldn't do this. I also wonder how that collecting community first discovered it was a safe method to use..."hey, guys, watch this." :eek:

On another note, I often found myself thinking about T206 collectors while reading the article. It seems as though there are quite a few traits they have in common with the stamp collectors written about on Linn's. They desire to determine sheet layouts, look for variations, they disagree over the "legitimacy" of certain variations, etc. It sounded very familiar.

Glad I had time to read this. One of the few bright spots about being home with the flu.

Best regards,

Eric

[steve B]

The Ronsonol isn't the worst thing. It's only "light petroleum distillate" or white gas. The same stuff Coleman lanterns used to run on, and maybe still do It's been a while.

Stuff previously sold/preferred as watermark detection fluid.
Benzine - Cancer hazard
Trichloroethane - Banned as an ozone depleting substance and also a bit unsafe.
trichlorotrifluoroethane - Not familiar with it, but adding fluorine to something generally doesn't make it safer.

Pretty much any non- water based fluid that won't leave a residue is fine. And for many foreign stamps watermark fluid is not needed. Just hold them up to the right light, or against a dark surface and it's seen fairly easily sometimes very easily.

Yes, there's quite a few common traits.
There's also a vast number of collectors who either don't care about that stuff, or who actively complain about and avoid it. (I love it when they're also part time dealers! )
The stamp term for hunting plate flaws is "flyspecking" And is usually at least a bit of a putdown.

Steve B