Washington 90c - #39 Cancelled?

Bill, I'm not as ancient as you (LOL) but even I used a little carbon tetrachloride back in the day (and yes, it had an unmistakable "sweet" smell,) and after that I used 1,1,1-Trichloroethane for another 10+ years before switching to Ronsonol. And I've been a full-time dealer for the last 18 years (and use it pretty close to "daily", often dipping hundreds of stamps at a time.) And yet we're both still standing (and our kidneys and livers are still functioning!) That may be close to a statistically IMPOSSIBLE outcome (at least according to the "toxicity" data...)

It wasn't my intention to poke "fun" at this subject, but I do try to put things in perspective. High exposures to these chemicals WILL cause problems, but the types of exposures casual philatelists are likely to see should have little or no effect. There are "lots" of people who were high-frequency sniffers for decades, and yet I don't know a single one who had health-related problems attributed to Ronsonol use.

For anyone who has concerns, be smart and use common sense; use in a well-ventilated area, don't use more than you have to, don't light matches near a bottle of lighter fluid (duh), don't drink it or inject it (duh), etc. (sorry, I'm getting snarky again.)

Toxicity-wise, you're almost certainly worse off taking that first breath in your garage after parking your car than you are dipping stamps in a couple drops of Ronsonol...and I'm even pretty sure I saw a study that philatelists (on average) live longer, so I'm waiting for that yet-to-be-discovered Ronsonol "longevity benefit!"

Historical DNA Collector, the ONLY thing flipping a side will do is tell you if the gauge is inconsistent along that side. Only the crudest reperfs will fail that test. However, by using the opposite side, you will also detect (very subtle) gauge mismatches (even if 100% consistent along the side) and issues with parallelness, two very important characteristics.

So if you're going to bother doing a graphical manipulation, why not just do it once & get the most information?

...and I'll remind everyone that this test cannot answer everything (like which side is reperfed), and CANNOT (ever) confirm that perfs are genuine. You still need to know what genuine perfs look like and you need to examine them under high magnification for cut, shape, pressure ridges, etc. However, if the sides are not parallel, or the gauge isn't an "exact" match side-to-side or top-to-bottom, then the stamp is almost certainly reperforated on one of those sides; such stamps should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

I remember that "carbona" or carbon tet was recommended for watermarking on the black paper trays some stamp companies used as giveaways. I never got into its use, since I did not have a good source for it. Besides I had a ready supply for something much better - benzene. Better, yeah. Half the evaporation time but twice as carcinogenic. My dad was a paper chemist and used to bring me a small bottle from time to time. Later, when I did a short bit part time for JCPenney, I found out we were selling it in the paint department in 16 ounce metal cans. [OMG]

In the mid 70s I went over to Ronsonol and that is what sits on my desk to this day. FWIW.

For those of you who seem to be Ronsonol shareholders (what other reason could there be for the high horse?), my points on the Clarity were 1) the smell of lighter fluid nauseates me, and 2) I felt safer with a nontoxic fluid on my desk than with lighter fluid, having curious small children around who, yes, might ingest it (duh).

More than enough said on this subject.

Don't take it personally, Dudley, just chalk it up to a bunch of old guys, whose kids are grown, taking advantage of a chance to compare notes on the old days. Nobody's trying to SELL anybody on anything here. Use whatever works for you.

I'm with essayk. To each his own. By the way, I use a cover/lid over the watermaek tray I use, which helps immensely in containing any fumes that might excape. I never smell fumes when using a cover. Of course when I'm using the tray, I'm exposed to it, but as Ken says, it's safe enough to use for a lifetime.

I've tried G&K's ("now benzene free") watermark detection fluid and its nowhere near as effective as Ronsonol, imo.
Better yet, the smell reminds me of the good old days sitting in a deer stand in freezing temperatures, when Ronsonol was used to charge the old 'Johnee' Pocket Warmers we used to carry before we replaced them with the more odorless solid fuel stick varieties.

Besides the marketing blurb claiming Clarity is non-toxic, is there any public evidence that Clarity is not harmful, given the proprietary formulation?

I am particularly sensitive to chemical odors, particularly perfume etc. However I use Ronsonol. While the odor may be nauseating, I like my potential carcinogens to have an odor. Then I know whether I'm breathing it or not and I have at least some control.

From 'The U.S. Specialist:
http://www.usstamps.org/clarity.html

From the manufacturer (Preservation Technologies):
http://ptlp.com/en/bookkeeper/deaci...ion/clarity/

Product safety claims will need to be taken at face value in the statements from the above as the formula isn't provided.

The last time the issue of lighter fluid vs. Clarity came up I said I was done with Ronsonol. Well, I am still using the same damn bottle of Ronsonol and haven't purchased the Clarity yet. I still despise lighter fluid. I have had some stamps on approval for a few days... still airing the stamps out that I dipped waiting for the odor of the lighter fluid to go away after two days...

Well, one and all, I used the Ronsonol and here are a couple of photos. One concern mentioned was whether or not the stamp was backed. I don't know what to look for so, could somebody tell me if it was? Another question was about a watermark - well, I suppose I have a lot to learn there, too. Is there one?

You must have a really sensitive nose! I work with it every day and while I've noticed, of course, the odor of the fluid on the stamps, I can't say that I ever noted that it was something that "hung around"! I also have never had a client say "gee, my stamp stinks"!

Do you have a black tray (or black plastic dealer stockcard) that you could use for the picture? The best way to see things is against such a background. The white background you used is much tougher, but even so it doesn't look rebacked (or margins added) to me. (Although having said that, the picture is very weird - the shadows make it look like the stamp is "floating" above something - maybe it's on a piece of glass?)

This stamp is unwatermarked, so nothing to look for there. You're just using the fluid in this case to check for faults/repairs, not a watermark.

Srailkb - As a matter of fact, it was in a glass bowl, but I will pick up some black plastic tomorrow. I'm just learning to 'see'.

I doubt re-backing. it has ink transfer clear as day on the back.

EDIT:
After looking at the original posted stamp I feel it still wasn't backed but the paper "grain" still don't look right to me. I personally like that forgery.