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

So far I think that we can all agree that using graphite to view a grill is very convenient and effective. The issue of contention seems to be that adding graphite could be seen as a permanent modification and contrary to our role as conservators of philatelic material.

Not erasing the graphite is a good point. This introduces no physical damage to a grill. However, it leaves the foreign material, graphite, and obscures the actual appearance of a grill.

The comparison of hinging an original gum stamp to adding graphite to view the grill of a stamp is interesting. Hinging alters the gum while utilizing graphite adds a foreign substance. Aside from devaluing a stamp, I can see the appeal of hinging a MNH stamp. There is nothing to obscure the face of the stamp when doing so. A grilled stamp does have a visual distinction from the front, but the rear is where a grill is typically observed. By placing graphite on it, it no longer looks as it originally appeared. A hinged MNH stamp doesn't have this problem unless you care about the appearance of the reverse. Even then, things such as gum breakers can be identified in the presence of gum disturbed by a hinge.

If one ever contemplates removing the graphite from the back of a stamp, especially if a grill is present, then you must use a soft eraser as Bill Weiss noted. Use a blotting motion instead of a dragging motion. Search Youtube if you are unfamiliar with methods. Also, never use graphite on the face of a stamp to identify a grill, such as when a stamp is on cover. In the vast majority of cases cheap (i.e. thin) aluminum foil or gold/silver/copper leaf can be obtained from an arts and crafts store that can be utilized to visualize a grill. Place the material over stamp, gently rub the material with something like a cotton swab, then place that material far away from the stamp. Use something like Cyanoacrylate (super glue) to make the impression on you material to be rigid. At that point you have an accurate reproduction of the grill of your stamp and can use any method that you like to highlight the rows and columns.



This argument appears to me as a "slippery slope" fallacy. I imagine that a similar situation arose upon distinguishing Mint Never Hinged stamps as being more valuable. It just isn't an argument that is relevant and appeals to fearmongering.

I haven't encountered a collector more studied in grills than essayk on this forum. Many arguments state that applying graphite doesn't devalue a stamp. However, the only data we have of a collector that specifically collects grills says that he'll pay more for non-graphite adulterated stamps. Until we hear from other grill collectors saying anything contrary, we should accept essayk's viewpoint as de facto.




I agree with this. Simply put, I agree that collectors shouldn't alter stamps in any manner. What constitutes alteration is up for debate. However, I believe that applying graphite should not be done.





I can somewhat agree with this argument if it was made such that graphite is quick and easy compared to other less convenient methods of identifying a grill. Other methods are available, but the addition of graphite is non-reversible and the reverse of a stamp is disfigured by it.



This argument seems to me to be a "red herring" fallacy. It doesn't address the issue at hand. It tries to distract us from it by presenting a separate issue. People that own a stamp can do whatever they like with it. Embed it in a keychain, set it on fire, whatever they do is their prerogative. The actual issue at hand concerns those that take a serious approach to philately. There are many arguments to be made about what a "true philatelist" would do, but I think that we can all agree that conservation of the material is imperative.



Great question that focuses on what I feel is the issue at hand. Personally I feel that graphite disfigures a grill from it's original state and is not worth applying for the convenience in identification. That is my viewpoint. I hope that further argumentation centers on this issue.




I cannot agree with this argument. It is permanent and it obscures a natural view of the grill. It is very foreign and very different than the "polutants(sic) already in the paper from the grill era."

These are my arguments and viewpoints. I very much look forward to hearing replies. I am not set in my opinion and welcome all arguments.

Not correct. When a grill is very weak, the "other" methods (foil, or whatever) do not work. Only the graphite will reveal enough of the points to enable study. Further, the foil method is not real easy to do. If the foil is not anchored fully, the impression will not be accurately impressed. It also takes much longer than applying some graphite.

But do not misunderstand - I respect your (or anyone's) right to disagree.

People hear what they want to hear, and ignore what they don't want to hear.

The analogy to hinging is but an analogy, but an apt one in some respects. There can be a significant difference in market value for a stamp with no evidence of hinging vs one with a bare but detectable trace of hinging, let alone one with significant hinging, disturbed gum, or a hinge remnant or two. All that speaks to what I was saying ought to be the case for using graphite on stamps. What they have in common is that neither can be undone.

Richard McP. Cabeen comments in his philatelic handbook that periodically there have been proposals that gum on stamps is hard to maintain in many climates, and is therefore an unnecessary nuisance and should be eliminated. He mentions that in each case a number of collectors bought the proposition and liberated their stamps by soaking off the gum. He does not recommend it. Too much of a one way street.

Pristine is always more treasured in the art market, so long as it is authentic. At its upper levels, stamp collecting follows the rules of the art market.

If an expertizer were to add graphite to a stamp I submitted without clearing it with me first, s/he would be subject to a claim for damages, should I so choose. The decision about whether or not that may be done rests with the owner, who does not relinquish that right just by virtue of submitting the stamp unless the terms of agreement for an opinion explicitly warn of the possibility that the procedure might be done. But even if they did, the owner should be consulted for permission first.

I'm glad this came up, in a way. I have been submitting some very rare grilled material to the PF of late, and realize that I need to add a note that graphite not be used in the examination of my submissions. They may reject the submission, but the stamp will not be altered. Personally, I don't think they will reject it, but if they did on that principal alone, then this would become a disputed subject that the ASDA should pay attention to.

My study of grills on the Banknotes gets into distinguishing two grill types each with two developmental states based on point shape. I don't use graphite at all, because I can do the job with a good binocular microscope and variable oblique lighting. As long as that alternative exists, I cannot regard the graphite treatment as indispensable. I wonder how much business would be gained if an expertizer were able to make the assurance that "no graphite will be used in the examination of your stamps."

"This argument appears to me as a "slippery slope" fallacy. I imagine that a similar situation arose upon distinguishing Mint Never Hinged stamps as being more valuable. It just isn't an argument that is relevant and appeals to fearmongering".

Inasmuch as I spend a great deal of my time being paid to break down and catalog large lots, I see how much fakery goes on on a daily basis. As I said before, graphite is generally not used on mint OG stamps.

"I haven't encountered a collector more studied in grills than essayk on this forum. Many arguments state that applying graphite doesn't devalue a stamp. However, the only data we have of a collector that specifically collects grills says that he'll pay more for non-graphite adulterated stamps. Until we hear from other grill collectors saying anything contrary, we should accept essayk's viewpoint as de facto".

I respect essayk's knowledge, but I know some of the top experts in the country and have seen them use graphite in expertising grills many times. And at this point, many of the higher end grills already have graphite on them from someone having looked at them sometime over the last 150 years, so at this point that genie is fully out of the bottle.

(Graphite) "It is permanent and it obscures a natural view of the grill".
Without the graphite their would be no "natural view of the grill" in many cases. That is the WHOLE POINT of applying it. It's not done for fun, or because people like to get their fingers dirty, it's done because it is the only way to see many grills properly. And it's been done for over 100 years now; the practice has not exactly brewed up a firestorm of protest to this point. One collector doesn't like it. There are probably a few others out there as well. The vast majority accept it as part of knowing exactly what it is they have, assuming they think of it at all.

Absolutely! In all the years I've been expertizing, I've only had one or two people ask (not complain) about the graphite I put there. In each case I advised them to erase it if it bothered them. In each case they said that they wanted to know more about it so they could do it themselves! I think essayk is that one in a 100(?) who might object to the use of graphite on a used stamp's grill, which is his right, but I believe he has greatly over-dramatized this discussion, particularly introducing legal action into it. As revcollector rightly says, it's virtually a non-issue for practical purposes.

Similar to this is another practice I have, which is to draw tiny arrows on the back of used stamps to point out tiny flaws so that owners can see the flaws. Again, I have *ONE* client who has objected to this in all the years I've been doing it, versus many who have complimented me on it. And again, anyone who might object would be advised to erase the arrows.

some observations from a newcomer to philately:

being new to stamp collecting, I found it comforting to hear that just about any style of collecting was appreciated. from the neophyte "anything in my stamp album" type of collector to the completely immersed "all of the sub-types in the Scott catalog" specialist, collecting is good.

I came to this forum to learn more about my new pastime, and have indeed enjoyed going through old and current posts very much.

but then I bump into a thread like this one, and begin to wonder, gee, should I wait until I've learned all of the advanced techniques of proper stamp handling before sorting out my latest batch of kiloware? dare I mount any of my stamps in a catalog using hinges? must I always be aware of the dollar value of every stamp in my collection, taking care to preserve every cent's worth of value? should I wait until I can afford a class 10 clean room and isolation suit to protect my stamps from inadvertent modification? (tongue firmly in cheek!).

I remember going to a local stamp club meeting with an old album that I was given by a friend who'd gotten it from a very old neighbor. I thought it was really cool because it had most of the Columbians in it, a few of which will ever be out of my financial reach. I was immediately grilled (no pun intended) by a few of the long-time stamp club members, wanting to know where I'd gotten the album, who from, when did I get it.....a real intimidating interrogation style questioning. and then the examination started, with some sneers at some of the old stamps that had folds, tears and thins, devaluing something I'd brought to the meeting to share. stamps that I thought were cool simply for their age.

I've since gotten past that whole thing, understanding that advanced or long time collectors will be much more discriminating than newbies. but I remain mindful that not everyone is as involved with the esoterica of this hobby as others are. and I still think my old stamps are cool!

sorry for the length of post! :)

iowaplayer

I think Iowaplayer nailed it: "old stamps are cool." Iowa locutus est, causa finita est.

Paper will not last forever unless incredible environmental conditions are met over many centuries. Just look at the extend that real conservatories will go to prevent deterioration of paper items; are we all being bad stewards because we are not removing all oxygen and replacing it with inert gas around our collections?

Point is, where do we draw the line when it comes to archival responsibility? Obviously we should all take care and try to not do anything that might alter our stamps long term. This includes protecting our stamps from moisture, temperature extremes, rough handling. But when the discussion moves to possible microscopic damage due to graphic particles I begin to lose a lot of concern.

If we are all to be this concerned at a microscopic or chemical level; then we better start thinking about what we have to do to neutralize all acidic content in anything paper. This means we should all be concerned about any cover or stamp left on paper and figure out a way to chemically neutralize any acid in them. After all, sooner or later this will indeed destroy/dissolve the very paper that our stamps are made from!

I respect essayk's decision to not apply anything to his stamps. And I certainly can see a situation where a clumsy or inexperienced person could damage a stamp by applying graphite incorrectly and make a mess of a stamp. But if we start being concerned about the microscopic attributes of our stamps then we need to rethink even soaking them in water (which also changes things at the microscopic and chemical levels) and we all better start buying inert gas to store our collections in.
Don