Washington 90c - #39 Cancelled?

srailkb - Thank you for the step-by-step and an idea of what one is trying to accomplish. Often, there are those of us that need the basic of basics to lay the foundation of understanding a procedure and the direction of the varied outcomes. Ronsonol - immersed or just floating? I'll see what I can do. Not being my stamps, I may get flak about it, however ....

51studebaker - Thank you for bring up the subject. Nothing much has really been done with this collection since the 70s and I know that fakes and such have been around since man started reproducing, but is there a time frame of when stamp fakes and forgeries, etc., really took off? I know it is to the point that even coins on ebay don't have trusted certs and the slabs are frequently in question, what with so many fakes coming out of Asia and other places. It is even getting to the point, with anything, that if something DOES have a COA, to beware!

The stamp will absorb the fluid almost as soon as it hits it (so it won't "float.") Just a handful of drops on a black card, drop the stamp face down, snap a picture of it sitting there in the pool. When you remove it, the Ronsonol will evaporate pretty quickly (within a minute) and the stamp will be ready to go back in the album/card/stockbook.

srailkb - Does it leave much odor or residue?

Ronsonol has been used for decades by virtually every major philatelist, dealer, auction house, expertizing service, etc., and every US rarity from the 1c Z-grill to the inverted Jenny "plate block" has been dipped (multiple times) without any noticeable/detectible effect. I guess that's a roundabout way to say I think it will be OK for your reperfed (or worse) Scott 72 to take a dip as well.

Some are bothered by the smell of lighter fluid, others (like me) aren't at all. Best to have decent ventilation when you do it though, just to be safe.

srailkb - Lighter fluid = perfume, so sayeth the (ex)smoker of 50+ years. I must admit though, I never used it on anything I wasn't trying to ignite. I'll try to remember to pick some up if I go out later - after I check with the powers that be.

Lighter fluid will certainly reveal faults and watermarks and won't harm stamps. But I got in the habit long ago of using Clarity brand fluid. The smell of Ronsonol made me sick (Clarity is odorless, as well as being nontoxic and nonflammable). Also, I didn't want lighter fluid around with small children in the house.

dudley - Thank you for the suggestion. Though I am the only small child in the house (and ever likely to be), I prefer the idea of the non-toxic (I have a cat) and non-flammable.

12 oz of Ronsonol = $3
12 oz of Clarity = $55 + shipping

For some unknown reason (LOL!,) many decide to put up with the odor and "toxicity" of Ronsonol after paying for the first few bottles of Clarity... FWIW, Ronsonol is (IMO "much") better for seeing faults/repairs. Clarity is slightly better for seeing light/difficult watermarks. Clarity dries too fast for my liking (making it more difficult to see things that "flash.")

I know a few collectors who love Clarity and would use nothing else. I know of only one dealer/expertizer who uses Clarity routinely, but maybe there are a handful more. Everyone else uses Ronsonol (thousands of people, and they've been using Ronsonol for decades, and they've been dipping the world's most valuable stamps in it routinely...)

srailkb - Well .... I'm not a fanatic about non-toxic or non-flammable. Nor am I hoping to be using that much of it.

To each his own, obviously, but I'm not sure why you thought the word "toxicity" should be in quotes, srailkb.

First aid instructions for Clarity: "Ingestion: Drink plenty of water and contact physician"

First aid instructions for Ronsonol: "Inhalation: Move the exposed person to fresh air at once. When breathing is difficult, properly trained personnel may assist affected person by administering 100% oxygen. Keep the affected person warm and at rest. Get prompt medical attention. Ingestion: NEVER MAKE AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON VOMIT OR DRINK FLUIDS. If vomiting occurs, the head should be kept low so that stomach vomit doesn't enter the lungs." [capitalization in original text]

Yep, an open window and Ronsonol, figuring that the shipping will be near $3.00, I'll keep the $55 towards my next purchase.

dudley said: "I'm not sure why you thought the word "toxicity" should be in quotes, srailkb."

I put it in quotes because of the millions (billions?) of hours that philatelists have been collectively inhaling it over the last 30+ years without a massive outbreak of deaths :-)

I should mention I'm a chemical engineer (polymer research scientist) by training & worked with many things a lot nastier than Ronsonol. I'm very familiar with MSDS & toxicity data, so tend not to get too worked up over any of the "CYA" statements that routinely appear ("NEVER MAKE AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON VOMIT", etc.) IMO, Ronsonol is "very safe" for the typical exposure a philatelist might experience. Of course, everyone should study the MSDS carefully and make their own judgments/decisions (I only felt it appropriate to include my "CYA" statement, LOL.)

But if the question is "What is the likely effect if you sniff a little Ronsonol a couple times a week, for a couple minutes each time, and you keep doing that for 50+ years." My personal, unscientific but observational answer = "absolutely nothing," hence my snarky response putting the word "toxicity" in quotes.

srailkb, I understand the points that you make and mostly agree with them. I agree that "flipping" a side and comparing it to itself does need to take into account things such a bent perf pin. In that case, a finding of three or more mismatched perf holes should be the threshold for determining a reperforation job. For this thread's subject stamp, it does have more than two misalignments per edge except for the bottom. I didn't specify it, but all of the lines that I added to compare perf holes were made utilizing the graphics program to create absolute 90 degree angles.

Should one first compare opposite sides to each other instead of sides compared to themselves? Your argument makes sense and comparing opposite sides should be performed first. Doing this in a manner utilizing an intermediate layer oppacity (50% that srailkb likes or 65% that I like to use) does make sense. If there is a strong change from circles to oblong shapes, then the perfs are most likely fake. If the results are questionable, then I do not know how to proceed. I just tested many genuine perfs and found that there are very slight natural variation in terms of parralelness and size of perf holes that make these tests non-absolute. In essence, if any of these tests show noticeable deviation, then assume that reperforation COULD HAVE occured. In the end the only way to know for certain is to pay for expertisation services. You may think that you 100% have a certain type, but paying for expertisation services is the only way to know with complete certainty.

Comparing sides to themselves is useful for identifying which of the four sides is faked. That isn't always easy to see when comparing oppostie sides to each other. In that situation, look for the holes transitioning from circles to oblong shapes as srailkb noted.

In essence, I believe that a full assesment of perforations should include comparisons to the opposite side AND to itself. srailkb's method of comparing to oppostie sides should be performed first. Then you could compare sides to themselves. Doing so will help identify which particular side is reperfed.

None of these methods are absolute, but are very useful to weed out obvious fakes.

Obviously, I am not an expert in these matters and srailkb is the namesake for the tests in question. Hopefully a flowchart can be established which details how to perform these tests in an accurate manner.

Thank you for the further information srailkb,

Ryan

Back in the "old days" we used carbon tetrachloride (sic) for watermarking. Talk about toxic stuff! I recall that the only place I could buy it was the local drug store. The pharmacist would look at me funny when he asked what I wanted with it and I told him..... But I thought the smell of carbon tet was intoxicatingly (notice that the word "toxic" is in this word!) great! Surely it must have been addictive!

But to "prove" Ken's statement, I've been using Ronsonol for at least 35 or more years with no ill effects that I'm aware of. I think it's great and my livlihood has depended on Ronsonal for many, many years.