Safe Signoscope Watermark Detector

Does anyone really use one of these? Do they really detect watermarks better?






-IBFS

I am not sure if electronic gadgets like watermark detectors and perforation gauges that cost hundreds of dollars are better than manual ones that cost much less.

I'm not sure either. That's why I'm curious. I'm wondering if anyone uses the thing and if so, is it some whiz bang miracle device. Is this a scam alert, or something that actually accomplishes something?


-IBFS

I have the one shown at top... it sits on a shelf collecting dust. If I need a watermark, there is only Ronsonol.

Very interesting thread from another forum on weird watermark detector devices...

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopi...f=29&t=34427


-IBFS

I had one of the SAFE Signoscopes for a while, and to me, it wasn't any better than a black tray with watermark fluid.

Matt

I have a signoscope also gathering dust on the shelf. Not worth the effort using the thing as I remember. I agree with a black tray and watermark fluid. I will drag the thing out and give it a try again as it has been many,many years since I last tried it.

Hi

I have used to top one. For hard to watermark stamps, yellow, light blue, etc. it worked fairly well. Other than that good ole Ronsonol.

Jerry B

Bought one - never got it to work. Either poor design or manufacturing. Anyway, got money back from dealer.

The Signoscope has been around for many years...because it works. I use both the Signoscope and watermark fluid. Sometimes the Signoscope is better, and sometimes the fluid is better.

If you are not using an acetate slip with the device, it will not work.

I use it 100% of the time when checking for watermark varieties with a large number of "identical" stamps. It isn't difficult to use, once you get used to it.

As an aside,
if members are soaking a stamp, prior to placing in the drying book,
put the wet stamp in a black coloured bowl of clean water, even the most difficult to read watermarks become obvious, I cannot recall ever being stumped via this method (Esp. GB earlies)

Agree with bookbndrbob's assessment. I've lost the original small bunch of plastic slips that are included, but acetate and even Saran Wrap cut to the same size work equally well.

A major part of buying the Signoscope comes down to whether you want to pay that much vs. cans of Ronsonol. You also want the power supply/wall wart which used to be extra. I bought mine (top one in OP) secondhand long ago and would never have got one at anywhere near retail/street price back then or now. Again per bookbndrbob, if you do a lot of watermarking, it's a great tool.

Ronsonol or watermark fluid is the cheaper alternative for most collectors, those who won't be doing much watermarking. But doing a lot of watermarking at once, I'd rather not be inhaling petroleum distillates in a closed room in the wintertime.

I also like the Signoscope and showed an example here:
https://goscf.com/t/58618&whichpage=2#516965

the photo does not really show the real life impression which is a bit better.

Is it effective on US watermarks?

in my link you see two examples, single and double line. single line is more difficult as always, but in this photo you can see it, although the stamp paper is not perfect at this area.

I believe I saw somewhere where it was designed for detecting forgeries on bank notes and paper money and not stamps.