Watermark - How To Reveal It?

Is it existing another system that the fluid revelator ( lighter fluid) for revealing the watermarks ?
Something more convenient which doesn't affect the stamp itself ?
Thank you

Some watermarks can be seen by holding the item up in front of a strong light.

There are certain products that involve capturing the watermark without immersing it in fluid (Google the manufacturer Morley-Bright for examples).
I have used them, and found that 1) they have a limited useful operational life, 2) they do not effectively reveal hard-to-find watermarks like the single-line USPS on US issues, and 3) they do not effectively reveal stamp flaws. So I stick with fluid, but not lighter fluid. I use Clarity brand wmk fluid: non-toxic, non-flammable and odorless. Pour it in the tray with a stamp in it, see what there is to see, pour the excess back in the bottle and the stamp is dry in under a minute.

I have limited luck with watermark detectors, although I suspect my own idiocy is to blame. As well as the two Morley products (one for off-paper, one for stamps on covers), Lighthouse also offers plug-in, light-based detectors. But you're getting towards 3-figure prices there. I've gone back to holding stamps against the light or viewing them face-down against a dark background. And relaxing if I can't work out which watermark it is. Ultimately, it matters to no-one but me if my albums contain a few misidentifications!

Regards.

Geoff

I've used Prinz "Super Safe" which I'm satisfied does no visible damage and makes it easy to see the watermark. The Single Line is always difficult but the Double Line is not hard to detect. It's also proven well at detecting repairs or other flaws in the original gum. It dries quickly without any traces or residual odor.

Is there a problem when using lighter fluid as revelator ?

Other than it being flamable and the odor, I've never been convinced that it doesn't leave some sort of residue.

I am oft-times struck by the disconnects in Our Little Hobby.

On the one hand, we have what might be (sympathetically) called The Archival Obsession, a hinge-free universe populated by acid-free papers, permitted plastics & polymers, etc.

On the other hand, we have what might be (sympathetically) called The Authenticity Obsession, wherein organic filth must be left undisturbed, tears must not be patched, etc.

If you know even a little about the long road from crude oil to refined petroleum products - or, worse, a little organic chemistry - you know that even reagent-grade organics are going to leave behind the sort of residue that the river of money we spend on stamp mounts is intended to keep from our little treasures.

But this makes for one of my favorite things: a reality check.

There are stamp issues for which watermark detection is pretty much required for identification (as the values of the varieties vary so much), and there are stamp issues which, a reasonable person might suspect, have never & will never be touched by volatile organics.

If all that money we're spending on The Right Stamp Mounts is worth it, there should be an easily observed difference in the stamp issues that have been subjected to watermark detection in decades past, and those that have not.

It should be common for us to hear rules-of-thumb like "oh, yeah, the 19xx Xc Dead White Guy stamps, they're always in ratty shape because of the watermark testing to which they have been subjected, time & again".

And there should be obeservable price differentials between the common varieties of watermarked/not and the comparable common varieties of rotary/flat, as the former would have been be subject to the perils of chemical testing, and the latter, not.

How can all of the archival choices make sense, and co-exist with chemistry-based watermark detection?

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

FWIW, I use "Clarity", which is available at amosadvantage and perhaps others as well.

From the label..

"Clarity was developed at the request of APS for an improved watermarking fluid that is safe to use with philatelic materials. Clarity combines a superb optical resolution with a moderate evaporation rate in a solvent free non-hazardous formulation"

I've watermarked thousands of stamps as a WW classical era collector, and have been happy with the results.

My problem is that I am working with old Swiss stamps. And the ïdentification of watermark is essential for most of them !
I am looking for a "non-touching" system for that recognition.
And also because, if the stamp has to be "cleaned" of hinge, it will be submitted under a lot of chemical components.
So,as my stamps has some high values, I check for systems minimizing the "touching" of the stamp

Even though I'm not all that obsessed with watermarks, I've wondered about checking for them.
But, with all the posts I've seen about using fluids, I haven't seen any mention of what happens to the gum of mint stamps when hit with the fluid.
It would probably be appreciated by more than just me if there was an explanation about watermark detecting on mint and/or on used stamps.
Sometimes people in the know forget that there are also people not in the know.

@XNBer
"".....there are also people not in the know" just like me !

I use lighter fluid, personally. Lighter fluid (naptha) has been used for decades by collectors, dealers and expertizers alike. While anything is possible in terms of residues, its use has been so pervasive for so long that I would think that any evidence of detrimental effects would have surfaced by now.

If you're talking about used stamps, plain water should do the trick and shouldn't harm stamps, but I'd be very careful handling old, wet stamps. Plus, of course, the drying time would be much, much longer than using lighter fluid or clarity, etc. And be sure to check and make sure the stamp doesn't have inks that run when wet before using water.

I have the electronic device (Signoscope) and used it quite a bit over time as it is effective probably 75 to 80% of the time. It's a pain to use and it's possible to crease stamps if one isn't careful. Nowadays I use Ronsonol 99% of the time. I agree that if lighter fluid caused issues, would we not know at this point exactly how damage occurs?

Hi

Ronsonol is the fluid of choice. It is not "oily" as some lighter fluids are.

As mentioned, after years and years of using lighter fluid to detect watermarks, any detrimental effects would be have been noticed.

Concerning Ronsonol, stock up when you find it. I have noticed that it is getting harder to find. It may turn out that it would be as rare as Dennison hinges

In my friend's store I have used the Signoscope for watermarking yellow or orange stamps and have been fairly successful. In some cases, no matter what one does, it is a matter of best guess.

Jerry B

Yes, indeed, no one has stepped forward to say that they bought an old collection, and the only stamps on one page that were damaged were the stamps that would have been subjected to watermark detection at one point or another in their lives.

And, yet, we agonize over the differences between plastic and PVC and polystyrene and (and) (and) in our stamp mounts, and pay premium prices - over & above the premium prices we are paying to begin with - because there is said to be am immense difference between these various materials.

To be fair, the exposure to watermark detection fluid (of whatever kind) is expected to be temporary, as the fluid 'quickly' & 'completely' evaporates, whereas the exposure to any out-gassing by the stamp mount would be continuing.

But, given that no fluid is going to be pure, it seems to be nothing short of miraculous that we've getting away with chemical-based watermark detection for as long as we have.

Or, maybe, *none* of this matter very much?

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey