Stamp 73. What's Going On With The Grill?

I have never heard anyone else ever state that applying graphite to help make a grill more obvious is any kind of "modification", permanent or otherwise. However I have seen experts at the PF and elsewhere apply graphite to help make those grills more obvious on some very expensive used stamps without it having the slightest effect on either the value or the collectability of said stamps.

I agree 100% with revcollector. Furthermore, all that needs to be done to remove the graphite......is to erase it! Just use a soft eraser, gently erase over the area and presto, the graphite will be gone. Also, proof that the graphite causes no harm can be found in literally millions on old letters written in pencil. Has anyone ever seen any damage to the paper caused by the pencil writing? Indeed no. Graphite on paper has, I think, been time-tested as perfectly safe.

"Modification" was not the best choice of words. I'm still learning the jargon of philately. However, applying graphite to a stamp is not 100% reversible. No eraser exists that will remove all of the graphite.

Will it remove enough of it that it is no longer visible to the naked eye? Yes.

Does it necessarily devalue a stamp? No.

Is applying graphite a commonly accepted method to visualize grills? Yes.

Does an eraser exist that won't physically change a grill due to pressure when used? No.

Does common pencil lead contain only graphite? No, it also contains particles of clay.

Will the abrasive clay particles damage the stamp? Probably not since a stamp spends most of its life in a flat static state.

Does graphite intended for use as a lock lubricant contain anything other than powdered graphite? Probably not. disi123, thanks for pointing out that source.

Does graphite (without clay particles) affect a stamp in any way other than remaining present in tiny quantities? No, it is an extremely stable and non-reactive compound.




Here's essayk's argument that changed my opinion:




In the end, is utilizing graphite a huge issue? Depending on perspective, it could be. I was just stating my opinion and pointing out that there are arguments against using it.

Interesting points, DNA (and, transitively, essayk). I notice that you use the term "modify" rather than "alter", and I think that's an important distinction to make. To my mind, at least, "modification" is a significantly looser term, and would include removing a hinge remnant or pressing a crease, while "alteration" means such things as reperforation, regumming, sealing tears, etc. I think we all can agree that these things all change the state of a stamp, but that there's a distinction to be made between the former and the latter types of changes.

In addition, I hope we also can all agree that a stamp with graphite rubbed on it has been changed from its original state, just as it would be if it had a spot of dirt on it. The disagreement, I think, is a matter of opinion as to whether that change is necessarily bad. Personally, when I first heard of using graphite to bring out a grill, I was skeptical at best. I felt that to do such a thing was tantamount to defacing the stamp. I have since moved away from that position, and now regard it as a valuable tool when examining a grilled stamp.

I still feel a slight twinge about it every now and then, though, because even though it's a commonly accepted practice, who knows what future philatelists might think? It was once perfectly acceptable to mount mint stamps by gluing hinges to the back - what do we think of that practice today? But hinging mint stamps was a concession to the lack of better alternatives at the time, and we can't really blame people for doing it 60+ years ago. I think using graphite to bring out grills falls into a similar category today, though the change made by applying graphite is far less significant that that of applying a hinge to a mint stamp. In any event, as I said above, I personally have moved solidly into the "graphite" camp. I believe that, at the present time, the benefits of its use outweigh any potential long-term consequences.

I do think that using an eraser to remove graphite is something that should be done sparingly, if at all (and if so, very gently and carefully). Erasers are abrasive by nature, and even so-called "non-abrasive" erasers necessarily create friction when rubbed against a piece of paper. This friction, in addition to sweeping away graphite particles, also is likely to break some surface fibers, or to widen breaks in already broken fibers (as in a grill). Even if such breaks are not noticeable even under ordinary magnification, they certainly weaken the paper to some extent, and thus should be avoided if possible, in my opinion.

Moon, thank you for your well written reply. You expand on my arguments in a very objective manner. You also make some good points that I agree with.

I am somewhat split on the argument. How this will be considered by future philatelists is unsure.

Thank you for contributing.

-Edited to translate late night ramblings.

HDNAC....Years ago expertizers and collectors (so still do) used a rubber stamp
on the back of a stamp.....you think this alters a stamp??
Graphite will not harm the stamp. It is used to help identify a stamp.

Edit to typo error.

This simple answer to all of this is don't erase it. That way future collectors will not have to do it again. And it does not "alter" a stamp. It does not change the perfs, the design, any watermarks, or cause anything ordinarily considered to be an alteration. It is not considered damage and does not negatively effect the value of a stamp. It may well enhance the value by making difficult grills easier to see.
Also, no one "drags a stamp through a puddle of graphite", they apply some to a fingertip and gently rub it on the back of the stamp. It's not as if the whole back becomes black, it just highlights the grill points.

To say that applying graphite to a stamp will not "harm" it is certainly true from the standpoint of deterioration. It does not interact chemically, so far as I know. But it does alter the stamp insofar as it adds material to it that was not originally present, and in the case of the grill points on a stamp the addition is not reversible. It must be remembered that breaking the fibers of stamp paper was part of the principle of grill embossing. Even after flattening the embossing the fibers remained broken thereafter. When graphite particles fall into the field of broken fibers, they stay, and no amount of rubbing with an eraser will coax them out without taking some of the paper with it. Because the stamp was not issued with particles of graphite embedded in its fibers, the argument can be made that the stamp can never be regarded as in a fully mint state thereafter. Whether or not that matters to a collector is a matter of convention, but as it has already been argued, fashions change over time, and it may well develop that a time may come when a premium is given for stamps that have never "taken the plunge" as it were. At such a time stamp grading will look askance at the practice, and call it destructive.

It is a matter of convenience that prompts the practice, since alternative methods of seeing faint grills do exist and are readily available much of the time. I do not subscribe to the notion that writing or placing marks on the backs of stamps is good practice, and do not regard it as archivally defensible.

Will I buy stamps that have been altered by the addition of a graphite smudge? Sure. But I also buy stamps with tears, thins, and even stains. I just expect to pay less for them.

Graphite is generally put on USED stamps to bring out grills, not mint stamps. Mint stamps usually don't need the graphite because the gum itself makes the grill easier to see.
If you expect to pay less for a used grilled stamp simply because someone used graphite to bring it out you will be disappointed a large majority of the time. I don't know of a single dealer who would do that specifically for that reason.

"Whether or not that matters to a collector is a matter of convention, but as it has already been argued, fashions change over time, and it may well develop that a time may come when a premium is given for stamps that have never "taken the plunge" as it were. At such a time stamp grading will look askance at the practice, and call it destructive".

If you think that there are a lot of fake grills now, just wait until the time if this ever happens.

Since this thread only pertains to using pencil dust for grill identification on used stamps one can simply treat it as dirt, if you don't like it, give it a bath and it will wash off. The same way one might remove dirt and soiling from a 120 year old stamp.

I want to discourage the use of graphite on stamps because it is a non-essential pollutant. It is not original to a stamp any more than a hinge remnant is. And, contrary to Stallzer's conviction, the graphite does not wash out of the broken fibers of a grill. I use a microscope for close study of grills, paper types, fibers and what not. You can see the difference graphite makes at that level even if you cannot with the naked eye.






Paying less is one way to look at it. The flip side is paying MORE for a pristine example that is free of graphite. But please understand, only a small part of my purchases are at retail from dealers. Most of my purchases are at auction. The dynamic is a little different. The sale price at auction is not set by the person who wins a lot, but rather by the first underbidder. That was a point taught to me years ago by Walter Mader who referred to me on more than one occasion as "the valued underbidder."

In the case of a stamp with a deposit of graphite on its reverse, my bidding will invariably stop at a lower level than if it were clean. Although I may not be able to win as many lots with that policy, it is also the case that where I am the underbidder the seller will not get as much of a realization for the stamp because of when I stopped.

My opinion:
Collectors should be good paper conservators, and practice good paper conservation techniques at all times. If they do not, then they are causing harm to the material and expect others to bear with it. There is a price for that. But aside from price, the hobby loses some of its panache when we tolerate practices which adulterate the material entrusted to our care.

While I agree with that as a general statement, I think you are over-reacting to the use of graphite to enable better study of a grill. As an expertizer, I can tell you emphatically, that without rubbing some graphite on some very faint grills, there is no way I can either identify them positively *or* study them well enough to decide if it is a fake grill.

Further, if we disapprove of anything that "adulterate the material" then we certainly would have to strongly object to the use of a stamp hinge to mount a mint stamp, yet a lot of collectors still use hinges to mount mint stamps. Many using the argument "I don't collect gum, I collect stamps". So what are we to do about those folks?

Also, where do we draw the line as to exactly what constitutes "aldulteration" of the material?

*** Edited by Staff to add quote tags. Please use them in the future. Posts are very difficult to read without them.***

What a great, informative discussion! Learning a lot here! Since I've already put the graphite on it, I will add more to the entire back side, as historical suggested. I also don't believe this to be a double grill as you all have suggested. Thanks!

With all the pollutants already in the paper from the grill era, a bit of graphite on the back is nothing to worry about. And as has already been stated, without it many grills could not be seen or identified.