Unique US 220B (With PF Cert) Ebay Auction - Thoughts?

Ryan, my friend, you sound overwrought, and all for nothing. For your own sake, please chill.

You are upset with me that I:

1. have not provided you with a higher res image of the subject stamp. {Although I was promised a 1200 dpi scan, none ever came. What did arrive was not even 10% larger than the one we had all been using. I have no plans to post it.}

2. have not acknowledged that micro-tomography ought to be applied to give the kind of thickness measurements pertinent to the question of "color added after printing." {What little I know about micro-tomography comes from here: http://spsl.ok.ubc.ca/xmt.html. Based on this I am sure it could also detect ink applied after printing if that is present. But given the capabilities of the VSC-6000 and the ancillary, supportive nature of the thickness result, I fail to see the imperative in going to the trouble and expense of arranging for a test to verify that result. If the VSC-6000 result conflicts or is ambiguous, then by all means micro-tomography should be done. Where and by whom is not clear.}

3. stated "Sollenberger has given them a scientifically valid basis for comparison...." but did not specify what that is. {Rest assured that it had nothing to do with technical instrumentation. It has to do with systematic observation of material using a lens or at most a microscope. It is his orderly set of observations and collection of data that form the "scientifically valid basis." This was not available to the PF in 2008, but it is today.}

The shots you were taking with me and with Ikey suggest that you appear to be interested in exploring another micro-analytic technique, and appear to be a bit upset that we are not rising to the suggestion. If you have a suggestion about how micro-tomography might contribute to the orderly and systematic study of stamp printing for problems like the evaluation of relief and transfer varieties, then let me encourage you to work up an experiment or demonstration to present as a paper to the International Symposium on Analytical Methods in Philately. Just today I got an email from John Barwis saying that the IAP (Institute for Analytical Philately) is urgently looking for new papers for the 2017 Symposium in London.

For the last 36 hours I have tried unsuccessfully to locate my notes from the 2016 IAP symposium held earlier this year, so you will please forgive me if I am not precise. However, I recall that Tom Lera of the Smithsonian was present and gave us a thumbnail of the analytical tools available to us at the National Postal Museum. In addition to the VSC-6000 I have a hazy recollection he also discussed a particular instrument using x-ray technology for three dimensional analysis. He named it; I do not recall it, but the description of micro-tomography at the site above puts me in mind of what Mr. Lera talked about. You certainly could look into it. It certainly seems a better alternative to jumping on people on this list who have never pursued it and are not likely to do so.

However, let us be clear, it was pure conjecture on my part that the addition of color to the subject stamp would be revealed as an additional thickness. Sollenberger did not say what he thought the VSC-6000 would reveal if the stamp were examined by it. He merely asserted that it would corroborate his findings from another type of examination; i.e. the "fingerprint" characteristics of the various R&T varieties as they have been cataloged by specialists.

essayk,
Yes, I am overwrought and I do need to "chill". However, I disagree that my reaction to this situation is "all for nothing."

I will respond tomorrow night.

essayk, please re-read my replies in this thread. I don't think that you have accurately assessed the entirety of them. Correspondingly, I will review yours and ikey's replies in effort to try to better understand them from an objective viewpoint.

There is much to discuss about this thread's topic AND the general state of this forum.

I did not intend to hijack this thread and steer it towards off-topic things, but here we are.

Goodnight.

I now find myself in a position that has the full attention of this thread. I did not intend to derail this thread.

essayk, ikey, others; I have no desire to discredit your viewpoints.

I do however desire to respond to your viewpoints in a logical manner.

ikey, you normally present a viewpoint that points out the humor/sarcasm of the situation that you reply to. At this moment in time, I regret responding to you so harshly. However, I do disagree with the focus of your sarcasm because it is a sensitive issue to me. I now can appreciate that you were trying to inject humor and lighten the situation. Ikey, I "get" what you were trying to do and I have always respected you. However, please respect my desire to try to advance the understanding of this situation such that we/others can gain insight and might hopefully gain knowledge of the subjects in this situation. Perhaps not resolve this situation, but at least try to work towards a further understanding through scientific methods.

essayk,
Your questioning leads me to multiple lines of thought. In desire to approach this topic in a an objective manner, I need more time to answer your lines of questioning in a manner that is understandable by all. At this moment in time, I don't have much time to reply to you.

Give me another day or two. I am currently dedicated to other studies. I fully desire to respond to you and answer all of your questions/inquiries.

As a preview, previous methods of analysis have NOT lead to definitive understanding of the topic at hand. A further understanding of specifics yes, but nothing definitive towards understanding the possibility of a "right cap only" situation. Those previous methods are valid methods of analysis, but they have not been sensitive enough to define anything positively regarding a "right cap only" situation.

Again, I do not desire to discredit anyone. I only desire to help advance our collective knowledge.

Ryan, Greetings:

I did not respond to your {characterization omitted} post so as to avoid going down the post-about-the-post-about-the-post rabbit hole but, since you keep talking about me ...

I was taken aback by your use of the word 'argumentation', which has been used exactly four times on SCF ... and each time by you. Perhaps I was in error.

I don't see XRT as useful for this problem, but suggested another philatelic problem area (tears'n'repairs) for which it might be. I thought I was throwing you a lifeline.

I did not raise the question, but if we are going to talk about ink being added to the left '2' to change a bi-cap into a right-cap, there is some chance that there will be detectable differences in the chemistry of the ink(s).

Q/ Do you think that Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy might help?

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

Not to pipe in here, I am an analytical chemist and if this was my problem I would consider Raman and Fourier Transform microspectroscopy. For example a Perkin Elmer AutoImage IR microscope connected to IR system. These methods are nondestructive and might offer a simple first test to compare areas on the left and right and pigment in the left cap area to adjacent pigment for any chemical differences. Also various transverse lighting techniques might be useful. I imagine lighting is what a VSC-6000 performs, but is deficient in capability that a spectroscopist with an IR microscope could answer.

Taking the case to Microtrace in Elgin, Illinois could enhance understanding. Chris Palenik is an amazing forensic spectroscopist and I have collaborated with him on non-philatelic forensics. For a reasonable fee you could work with Chris, or possibly no fee if they are mentioned in the paper or at a conference. This could answer the question absent any other examples.

I will add that pigment and its application to paper is a complex matter from both a chemical and physical perspective. Even if pigment were removed from one stamp to apply to another, the addition would not be a simple matter of painting the left cap in. Pigments involve not just ink, but solvents, binders, extenders, etc that would be altered by the removal process. These are the factors that would be detectable. In my opinion, to fill a left numeral cap in a manner that would be impossible to detect, either through careful visual examinations and instrumental techniques, would be highly difficult if not impossible. Creation of a right cap only by bleaching or scraping a no cap 220 should also be readily detectable.

Inability to conclusively detect any differences means that we fail to reject, and therefore accept the null hypothesis, that the right cap continues to appear genuine.

Good luck I enjoy watching this thread from both a philatelic and physico-chemical perspective!

Crouse27, you rang a bell for me. That is very similar to the instrument Tom Lera told us about at the IAP Symposium. My memory of it was off, but you jogged it back on track. Here is a description of the actual machine in the forensic lab of the National Postal Museum to which qualified philatelic researchers have access:
"The Bruker ALPHA FT-IR is a forensic device for performing elemental analyses of samples using Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy. This allows philatelic researchers to determine composition of inks and papers composed of organic compounds."

Here is a link to more about the equipment in the lab: http://analyticalphilately.org/?page_id=199

ikey,
I done did {characterization omitted} up. I appologize. I have been going through a particually stressful time. I horribly misintrepted your reply and I took my stress out on you. I do not use that as an excuse. I sure done did {characterization omitted} up and have only myself to blame.

As for the argumentation vs. instrumentation thing, I think that this could be a matter of semantics. Perhaps both of us are in error. Regardless, not something worth arguing about.

"... there is some chance that there will be detectable differences in the chemistry of the ink(s)." I agree. Adding to our notion, Crouse27 has chimed in with a high level of expertise. He/she describes many methods of analysis that are pertinent. One is possible using the currently available VSC-6000 that many philatelic agencies already have access to. However, he/she finds that such a device lacks capability compared to other tools.

I understand your desire to avoid "post-about-the-post-about-the-post rabbit hole", so I will focus any further replies on objective discussion of analysis methods that try to resolve the topic of this thread. Again, I am a {characterization omitted} that has learned from this interaction and who is expending effort to remain more objective.

------------------

Everyone,
The possibility of a right cap only variant seems unlikey. However, we should expend a similar amount of effort considering that such a variant could possibly exist. Objectivity is very important.

------------------

Crouse27,
You have a highly technical knowledge concerning the topics of this discussion as an anyalytical chemist. I thank you for contributing. You have already described definitve methods to analyze the validity or not of a left hand cap on two. I ask of you to consider the case of how to prove/disprove a right cap only variant where the left two is normal. Could your proposed analytical methods apply to the "un-inked" space in the right hand cap? Given that an entire metal printing plate had ink applied to it and was then subsiquently wiped, would smaller particles or single molecules of the constiuents in ink other than the pignment particles remain detectable? Any other thoughts?

Ryan: Thx. Our sideshow is closed. I originally read 'argumentative' into 'argumentation', which is just wrong. Okay, now its really closed |)

One of the issues in instrumentation is the size of the area onto which you can direct the instrument.

If you want to look for chemical traces in a 1mm diameter area, you need an instrument that can focus down to that spot, or some sort of masking that is compatible with the sample & the instrument, or a good way to isolate the signal you are getting from that area.

The field-capable FT-IR systems I marketed were good for things like gas cloud characterization; I'll happily accept Crouse27's suggestion that there are instruments that can be used on so small a target.

The cheap'n'cheerful SIMS systems I've marketed had a largish spot size, eg, ~20x larger than what would be useful here. The result is that you would get a significant return from the normally inked areas of the stamp, drowning the signal from just the uninked area.

I've only sold bits'n'pieces for building XRT/XRF/etc, and so am pretty innocent of system capabilities.

Someone who wants to get their byline into Linn's could write a short Inventory of Analytic Philatelic Instrumentation, explaining who's got what, who's used what for what, and why.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

To HDNA query how to approach evaluating a valid right cap.
First prove the left numeral 2 above is not a filled cap. A reference for analytical comparison purposes is a Scott 220. This is an easier evaluation to do so should come before anything else.

Second, to evaluate the validity of the right cap use a Scott 220c as a reference for comparison purposes. If no significant differences in paper surface and spectrophotometer determinations are made between 220c right cap area and 220b right cap only, then we fail to prove the cap is different (fail to reject) so we accept the null hypothesis the right cap is also genuine for the time being. I say for the time being because technology WILL improve and currently detecting a single pigment molecule in an otherwise white (wiped) area would be very unlikely at present. Techniques are currently quite sensitive enough to evaluate an area as small as a pinpoint (cap) nondestructively. Importantly, whatever observations are (or aren't) made should be reproduced in another laboratory to validate the hypothesis. I believe this was described earlier in the thread.

Ideally other identical varieties surface, though, which would bolster the genuinness of a cap variety, and help rule out an inking anomaly or a pulp inclusion that received the pigment and subsequently came loose leaving a white area coincidentally and uncannily similar to a cap.

All this said, I will take a step back and declare I am no technical expert. We are all smarter together.

Plate varieties can only be validated with multiple confirming copies. Period. Fancy equipment won't change that basic truth.

Crouse27,




I absolutely agree that our collective knowledge can produce great things. Individual boasting of knowledge does not always lead to a betterment.

-------------

Everyone,

As far as I can tell, none of us are experts regarding utilizing specialized analysis methods to examine tiny pieces of paper for the specific purpose that would solve the dominant topic of this thread. However, we each have our strengths and when combined, I truly believe that we can advance philatelic knowledge.


-------------

Crouse27,
Your last reply makes perfect sense to me. I.E. many current analysis methods are perfectly capable of providing input to assist in identifying fakes. You espouse that other methods may be more sensitive than the VSC-6000. You present arguments that detail how to utilize previously described equipment in a manner that utilizes logic to progress through an algorithm of how to interpret such data. To simplify, such analytical methods can be utilized to credit or discredit that a stamp has been altered.

The hot question at this moment is that there are multiple other examples of a possible right-cap only stamp that are in the possession of not only the original subject of this thread, but highly regarded experts. Surely, your explained methods of analysis could weed out examples that have been intentionally modified to hide the presence of a left-cap two. Not 100% sensitive, but sensitive enough to elicit further analysis if the results are not conclusive.

I ask of you for explanation of further capabilities of the analysis method that you propose. How can that method of analysis further understanding of the outlying examples of right-cap only stamps that hypothetically pass the test of analysis?

Are there further methods of utilizing Raman and Fourier Transform microspectroscopy to approach this problem?

You believably present yourself as an individual that is obviously educated in your field. I am not anywhere nearly as educated as you in your field. Given the above conjecture, what are your thoughts?

Every bit of input absolutely helps our collective to advance our perspective of how to advance philately.

--------------

sinclair2010,



Sinclair, your statement is absolutely true for the majority of cases. However, situations do exist where "multiple confirming copies" of a particular stamp are similar enough to consider whether or not they are physically related.

The situations where stamps are very similar but could be very different in identity do require extensive analysis to determine a collective agreement of what said stamp should be identified as.

You are a VERY knowledgeable person concerning many issues of stamps. I respect your opinion very much. My reason for eliciting further discussion is that I truly believe that some varieties could exist that have not been previously documented.

The conjecture at this moment is not about the varieties that you are an expert of. The conjecture is about a very specific stamp that was issued. Specifically the 1890 to 1892+ 2¢ Washington.

I may have misinterpreted your argument. Regardless, your input will be greatly appreciated.

The latest topic is how to analyze and vet potential right-cap only variants. I truly desire to hear your input concerning this specifically issued stamp as described above.

I am new to this program. essayk invited me to join the thread since my name has been associated with the recent flurry of interest in 220 relief breaks. He describes my findings rather well. Please see the December 2015 Specialist for an article about John Latta's theory about a predecessor left 2 cap. And, how the lightness in the upper right corner on 220a and 220c stamps and the red smudges or lines at certain spots came to be - strange but I believe to be true. I have 80,000 copies of 219d and 220 in my "collection." Been studying this issue since 1964 or 65. My census as of 2 years ago (now updated) is USSS study paper # 22. I have been advised not to publish a paper refuting the supposed 220b copy's owner for legal reasons until a new PF cert is issued. Did describe my position at the Sept CCC meeting. I am exhibiting my relief breaks hopefully in Atlanta in Jan (6 frames I think) and revised at Plymouth (MI) in April.

Clearly, the supposed 220b has the red smudges and lines (using the best scan essayk could provide) that only appear on deeply entered left cap and both cap copies (of all 220 stamps). The stamp has to be a modified 220c.

As to the idea that the breaks (caps) were intentional to show a change in color - the idea proposer just does not understand the sequence of events necessary to produce a stamp.

I do not understand testing equipment - I'm an accountant!

If I can provide further useful to any of you, I will try to respond.

While this is a succinct description of the central purpose of our common enterprise in this thread, it is nuanced by the fact that certain combinations of stray marks and breaks not contiguous with the right numeral "2" are characteristic of known varieties. Understanding and mapping these is outside the scope and purpose of the instrumentation we have been discussing, useful as it is for other parts of the analytical process. The use of the instrumentation so far discussed is not sufficient to discriminate between a relief break (a transfer roll problem), a plate flaw (other defects of cliche particular to a plate position), or skips in the inking of a position and its printing. All three appear in the final print, but originate in different steps in the process. Because this is so, the necessity of corroborating examples is not relieved by the instrumental results.

In terms of central purpose, evaluation of the data may be a team effort, but the most competent interpretation will still come from those most familiar with the nuances of the stamp design on die and on plate. The expertise of Dr. Sollenberger is in part due to his long study of examples (over 80,000 in his collection alone, starting in the 1960s) and in part due to his intimate familiarity with the significant body of literature devoted to the subject (over 87 articles of various length and depth).

{Just noticed that Dr. Sollenberger has joined the discussion as hsolly. Welcome to the list!!

To summarize, there are 4 possibilities:

1) an actual right cap only

2) an alteration to produce a right cap on a no cap stamp

3) an alteration to remove a left cap on a two cap stamp

4) something that looks like a cap due to an inking anomaly that isn't a real cap

The right micro-analysis tool might be able to detect 2 or 3, but it is the possibility of 4 that really begs for a confirming second example if found not to be 2 or 3.

But given what hsolly wrote about it, I remain skeptical it is a real right cap only.

The distinction between "cap" and "no cap" varieties is not a very helpful one. The stamp in question has an unmistakable cap above the right numeral "2", and the PF has attested to that. What is at issue is the question of how it got there.

The distinction that is meaningful in this context is the distinction between "relief and transfer varieties" on the one hand, and "plate varieties" on the other, recognizing that in the realm of "printing anomalies" the first may actually be seen as a subset of the second. Nonetheless, the focus of attention comes down to this: Where did the damage take place? If on the transfer roll - its a relief break. If on the plate, it's a plate variety.

Both of those categories presuppose that the stamp has not been altered AFTER printing. The discussion on instrumentation came up in the context of trying to determine the authenticity of what we are seeing above the LEFT numeral "2." Did it originally have a cap above the "2" that has been effaced to produce what we are seeing in this stamp? hsolly thinks that must have happened to produce what we are seeing. If the instrumentation were to demonstrate conclusively that the ink in the critical area above the left two is original, then there will be a challenge to the conclusions hsolly has drawn.