Another Basic Q From New Collector - Watermark Fluid

Is watermark fluid helpful in identifying any faults in a stamp - thins, creases, anything else - in addition to identifying watermarks? If so, what would be the best technique for doing so and what should one look for?

Are there any stamps at all - old/modern, mint/used, etc. - on which watermark fluid should not be used?

Thank you for any advice you may have.

Ronsonol lighter fluid works just as well as the clarity fluid for $25 less. Most dealers and those that certify stamps use it as well and it will show most every fault.

I second the comment on Ronsonol lighter fluid. Readily purchased for $3-$5 depending on size of bottle, evaporates slowly and cleanly, great at showing watermarks and faults. I'd never consider paying the much higher prices for watermark fluid.

Go here...

http://www.ebay.com/gds/Stamp-Condi...46826/g.html

and scroll down to where it says "OBSERVING FOR OTHER FAULTS USING WATERMARK FLUID"

Hope this helps



-IBFS

I third. Beat bang for the buck. Can't beat it.

Best bang that is. Talking to the wife as well as reading. Sorry

I intend to switch to Clarity from Ronsonol. I have to wait at least 24 hours for the smell of Ronsonol to leave my stamps. How can that be good for a stamp? There is a strong financial disincentive for the daily users of Ronsonol such as dealers, experts, and auction houses to be objective and dare I say it, honest, about the long-term safety of Ronsonol.

sinclair2010, if you're like me you'll be disappointed with Clarity. IMO, it's about the same at detecting most watermarks (with one important exception - it's MUCH better on those tough inks that bleed through and make watermarking very difficult -- I'm talking about you, Washington Franklin yellows, oranges, olive greens, etc...) However, IMO it's not NEARLY as good at showing faults (both in fluid & while drying.) This is a deal-killer for me.

When I tried Clarity, I dipped stamps both ways (Clarity + Ronsonol) to compare. I did this for over a month, so probably dipped many hundreds if not thousands of stamps. There were small faults clearly visible w/ Ronsonol that I simply could not detect with Clarity, even knowing where they were! That freaked me out, causing me to put my Clarity back in the cabinet :-)

FWIW, I still have those bottles of Clarity in my cabinet, but honestly don't ever think to take one out, as using some of the advanced techniques and/or color filters along with Ronsonol has always allowed me to find the tough watermarks. To me, Clarity could be a great "niche" product (if priced more competitively,) but it's definitely not the best overall watermark fluid.

So I guess I'm one of those "daily users" with "strong financial incentive", but the financial incentive is meaningless to me if I can't see those small faults. When you switch, my recommendation is to dip both ways and my bet is you'll come to the same conclusion that I did. If you want to accurately describe soundness/faults, you're going to have a bottle of Ronsonol, not Clarity, on your desk...

On a related note, most full-time dealers like me probably do at least $500,000 in annual sales. I go through a handful of 12 oz Ronsonol bottles each year (cost ~$25.) If I switched completely to Clarity, I'd probably go through a dozen or more bottles (cost ~$300+). Believe me when I say the cost difference between 0.008% of sales and 0.100% is truly insignificant (i.e. a "rounding error.")

I'd change in a heartbeat if Clarity was a better overall fluid to use. Again, this just IMO -- coming from a person who used it extensively and (I think) gave it a very fair evaluation.

Thanks to all for your replies. Would this Ronsonol be safe to use on all stamps, no matter how old, fragile or whether they are mint?

I cannot say unequivocally that Ronsonol is safe for each and every stamp. I can say that I have never found any stamp that it is not safe for. I can also say that any stamp that has been safe with Clarity is also safe with Ronsonol as far as my experience goes, but I have not used Ronsonol on every possible stamp. Some of the newer spray-on cancellations are not totally safe for Ronsonol, but there is no reason to watermark check them as no watermark will ever appear on a modern US stamp. Those same spray-on cancellations will run when exposed to the citrus air freshener recommended to remove them from a cover too.

In short, "Is ?Ronsonol safe to use with only normal care and without any additional warnings?" Yes.

I'd still be careful of it's flammability and use caution not to breath it any more than you have to. Of course that applies to ANY chemical.

I'm not the expert to be answering this, but I believe there are inks that are not compatible with watermark fluid in general, and I would imagine with Ronsonol in particular.

In fact, looking at the Scott catalog right now, it says that some inks used in photogravure printing dissolve in watermark fluid. It says to also watch out with chalky paper.

You may be able to Google around and see if someone or some organization has put together a more specific list. Scott does have some warnings in it about certain stamps within the listings, but I'm not sure if it's 100% complete.

Personally, I've only had to watermark certain older Japanese definitive sets extensively, and I speak from experience that cancellations with colored ink will fade or disappear in Ronsonol. For this reason, I just this week bought some Clarity watermark fluid, which is, according to the bottle, "safe for adhesives, inks and taggents". I can't report yet how successful that'll turn out to be for me.

Ken,

Thanks. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems to me that you would like to find an alternative to Ronsonol. Do you think Clarity dries too quickly and that is why it makes detecting faults more difficult?

sinclair2010, yes...Clarity dries too quickly for me - sometimes those pressed creases flash very subtly and disappear quickly (ditto for other minor faults.) Too quick to notice in Clarity, but fairly easy to see in Ronsonol (probably takes at least 5x longer to dry -- I didn't time it but it's significant...and I LIKE the longer dry time.) Also, my experience is that the "contrast" on certain faults is not as good "in fluid" w/ Clarity either. Seeing "tiny" problems (minute tears between perfs, bent perfs, tiny reinforcements/alterations, etc.) is much more difficult (sometimes impossible, at least in my trials.) Even knowing where some of those very tiny problems were (from Ronsonol,) I couldn't find them while in Clarity.

For me, Ronsonol works great - good contrast, sufficient dry time, very inexpensive, known tips/techniques for the tougher stamps like those yellow WF's. I'm not looking for an alternative. I've used it pretty heavily for 20+ years and haven't dropped dead yet :-) (Seriously, good ventilation helps.) BTW, I've never been able to "smell" any Ronsonol 24 hours later on a stamp. Your sniffer must be a lot better than mine!

So many of the world's greatest stamps, for so many years, have been dipped in Ronsonol. If there was some lingering effect (even subtle, given all those data points...) it's hard to imagine how we wouldn't have seen it by now. Maybe we need more time to tell whether there's an issue, but you could also say that about Clarity, or any other fluid for that matter...

That's exactly the way I look at it and why I generally don't give much credence to the notion that Ronsonol is harmful to stamps. It's been so widely used for so long that damaged stamps would be everywhere by now.

I am totally with Ken S. on this subject and can not dispute one word of what he has written. I have probably examined 100,000++ stamps in my career in Ronsonol and have never had a problem of any kind. But while we are on this subject, I am looking to buy a small glass watermark tray and wonder if any reader has one for sale. As is typical of my luck, I had two of them for many years and gave one away to a friend about a year ago. Then I made the mistake of bringing my only one to the APS Summer Seminar in June and while there, loaned it to folks to use and sure enough, I never got it back. Just "disappeared"! So now I would like to have one to replace the plastic one I am now using. If anyone can help, please send me a private email at weissauction@rcn.com. Thanks!