[hcv123]

Originally Posted by cor3y7

Just want to throw in my two cents regarding something I keep seeing repeated over and over - carbon dating is not applicable to ink.

For one, the amount of scientific uncertainty is too great to distinguish between decades, let alone years. We run many samples at work (I'm an archaeologist) and results are generally +/- hundreds of years. And second -- and perhaps most importantly -- carbon dating only applies to (formerly) living beings that took in carbon from the atmosphere.

Now, chemical analysis ("forensic analysis") can be performed on ink, as some people have alluded to. A mass spectrometer or x-ray fluorescence can be used to analyse the ink, but this does not date the ink. Instead, it determines the chemical makeup which can be directly compared to another sample. So, while useful in comparing 2 samples, it would have little practical use for authenticating a signature unless the composition of ink has varied significantly over the years. Someone had mentioned that this method would be destructive -- not necessarily.

Sorry, a bit off-topic but thought folks may find this interesting. Sadly the "forensic" future for autograph authentication looks grim. If anything, I feel like a good old fashioned microscope may be off some use to see how the ink interacts with the paper. I would imagine that ink that's been on paper for 100 years would look differently and react with the paper base differently than ink that's been applied a few months ago.

Interesting topic to think over, especially in light of these recent developments. Great detective work to everyone involved. I have no dog in the fight with the T206s (thought did consider bidding on a few recently), but am hoping my 33 Goudey collection is unscathed.

Thanks for sharing