Another Basic Q From New Collector - Watermark Fluid

Bill,
I find that old glass furniture casters work pretty well for this purpose. They are glass, shallow, you can sometimes find them in very dark colors, and they are inexpensive. I picked these up and will send you a few when they arrive in next few days.
Don
http://www.ebay.com/itm/181503869001

That's a great idea 51Studebaker! Tank you kindly. I really can't add to the subject as I've only ever used Zippo fluid. Seems to be cheaper than Ronsonol in my area but then I am 20 minutes from the factory...lol

Glass Castors - Thank you Don! The only drawback I quickly see is that a standard watermark tray has flanged/sloped sides which makes sliding a stamp out much easier than a straight side will be. Also not sure how the non-black color will affect the ease of detection of tiny faults. If these could be found in BLACK, that would be ideal! And last, I can see in looking at pictures of many of these found on ebay, that, because they are used (of course!) most of them look like they have abrasions on the inside bottom, which could easily damage a stamp that is placed in it as the stamp is moved around and removed.

ZIPPO lighter fluid will not work as well as Ronsonol. For unknown reasons, Ronsonol works the best. There are oldtimers who have tested every different kind of lighter fluid there is, and always Ronsonol is found to be the best.

I use one of my Wife's finger bowls, it's a paisley design so I just dunk the stamp and lay it on the back of a display card. I told her it fell on the floor and broke so if she ever finds out the truth I am in the doghouse.

I just use the back of a black plastic 3x5 dealer card. They're very easy to move stamps on and off (and they bend easily if you need to pop the corner up to get your tongs underneath.) I've always found trays to be way too cumbersome (and size-restrictive for larger items like blocks/strips.) Never actually understood the need for trays, and consider gimmicks like Signoscopes to be utterly worthless (but that's a different rant for a different day.) I can't tell you how many people I've watched damage stamps trying to get them out of watermark trays or into Signoscopes...

IMO, if someone needs the "edges" of a tray, you're using way too much fluid. You only need 3-4 drops, and those sit very nicely on the back of one of those flat cards. BTW, I DO understand the value of "jet black" backgrounds, but the cards are really pretty good, especially when "wet" (better than virtually every plastic tray out there and better than many of the glass/ceramic types.) They pack/travel easily & are very inexpensive to replace when you lose one (maybe 8 cents? LOL.)

The best tray is actually the bottom of an old black glass ash tray like the kind used years ago in many bars. You can usually find them in thrift shops for a dollar or two, and when inverted they work great. Great visibility and easy to add and remove stamps.
The back of a black stock card does work pretty well.

I got a black ceramic saucer at Goodwill. The depression contains any stray fluid and I use the edges to air out any stamps that aren't dry yet.

I concur with being careful to not damage stamps; especially when still wet. Frankly I often turn the castors upside down and use the flat surface, apply only a few drops of fluid, do my discovery, but allow stamp to completely dry on glass surface before trying to remove it.
This means that I might have 5-6 of the glass castors sitting on my desk but so far this approach has worked well for me. I simply hate handling wet stamp at all since the risk of my big, clumsy fingers making a mistake is too high.
Don

The value of using a tray is that you can, of course, use a lot more fluid than on the back of an approval card (which is good, as that's what many pros use at shows.....) which enables you to study the stamp a lot more intently, move it around, pick it up and down quickly which sometimes will reveal very subtle/minute thins that are not obvious just by looking in the fluid or laying on a card. Most examiners for expert services like to immerse the stamp in fluid as I've described, for greater flaw/fault exposure.

The old fashioned glass watermark trays had beveled edges and slight grooves at each corner, which allowed the user to easily slide his tongs under the stamp to remove from the tray. Some top pros swear by these trays and I once was offered $50. for one I had been using for decades by a top pro who was viewing auction lots at our house and when he saw it, he wanted it. I elected to keep it, but it was the one I loaned out at APS in June that "walked away"!

So readers can easily see how even expertizers and top-notch dealers can disagree on something as simple as a watermark tray/card! So imagine how it can happen with more important subjects too!

BTW, the lift & drop technique Bill W. mentioned above is a very important tool for those who don't know/use it. BTW, I use it with my 3x5 cards as well and even with 3-4 drops there's plenty of fluid to utilize that technique (largely because Ronsonol dries so slow. Probably couldn't do it with Clarity unless I dumped a bunch of fluid in a tray.) I should also mention that I almost always work using magnification (head magnifier) when dipping stamps. Makes those tiny problems a lot easier to see with my aging eyes.

Ken and/or Bill:

Zippo acquired Ronson/Ronsonol in 2010, and they have apparently reformulated both Zippo and Ronsonol since then. There seem to be discussions on lighter and fountain pen boards about whether or not it's now the identical product under both brand names.

Are either of you using the new Ronsonol (you can find the Zippo name on the back), and, if so, can you see any differences in performance?

-- Dave

The bottle I have on my desk right now doesn't have Zippo anywhere on the back. No idea when I purchased it though - I usually buy by the case (or several cases) so may have purchased it years ago.

FWIW, there was one time (long ago, maybe 10+ years?) that I ran out of Ronsonol and the convenient store near me only carried Zippo. I used a small bottle of that and didn't notice any huge difference. Wasn't particularly looking for differences, so there may have been some subtle ones, but nothing that jumped out at me anyway...

Thanks for checking, Ken. (Maybe you can have a supplementary line of business in selling "original formula" Ronsonol! Kind of like the original Dennison hinges!)

I'll be interested in seeing if Bill or others have noticed any differences, or perhaps you all locked in those supplies early on!

-- Dave

I believe the original Ronsonol was pure naphtha, wasn't it? Even if the formula in Ronsonol changes, naphtha should be available from other sources. A paint store would probably have it or could get it if necessary.

It would seem that a (very straightforward, fairly inexpensive) chemical analysis would answer that question rather conclusively. Surprised anyone is still debating it so long after the change.

I doubt the generic formulas for any of the lighter fluids are all that different.

...and I "highly doubt" the composition of ANY lighter fluid is very consistent. I think these things are basically byproducts/distillates of other processes and contain complex & variable mixtures of many different hydrocarbons. I have no idea (and they won't ever say,) but I bet the actual composition lot-to-lot has quite a bit of variability (and has, for as long as they've been making it.)

So my "guess" (nothing more) is that they're all roughly the same in generic composition and performance, they're all "way better" and "way cheaper" than traditional watermark fluid, they all have potential (minute, but real) health concerns so you should use with ventilation.

...and if I set up a blind experiment with Ronsonol & Zippo, it wouldn't surprise me if those dealers & experts who are "sure" Ronsonol is so much better all-of-a-sudden couldn't tell the difference :-)

Anyway, this topic has really piqued my curiosity (not hard to do,) so the next time I'm out I might just pick up some Zippo & "new" Ronsonol - sounds like a side-by-side-by-side comparison is in order!