Sulfurized, Oxidized 3c 1851-57 Stamps. Is There A Safe Method To Refresh The Color?

Thank you Don. Respectfully beg to differ with the StampSmarter definition. It is the outlier amongst defining sulfurization. Of course dictionaries saying it is so does not mean any more than StampSmarter saying it is so. Cheers!

I did not post the link to 'prove' any definition. It just happened to come right after your post.

As far as definitions go, it is wise for any post/thread title to include whatever the commonly used terms are since it will get the most search results for future users. This is why the Stamp Smarter article uses both terms.
Don

I would have to brush up on my chemistry to vouch for it, but I have it on pretty good authority that the process that discolors our stamps is a reduction reaction. The treatment of stamps with H2O2 is an oxidation reaction. Surely everybody remembers redox reactions in chemistry?

Also, since




we should be able to freely use the word "shade" as 99.9% of collectors use it

Repeated for clarity.

The way Bill Amonette explained it to me was that the H2O2 would combine with extra single Oxygen atoms on the stamp.

So. H2O2 + O ==> H2O, and O2.
Namely Water and Oxygen.

Like many others, I used to use the terms "shade" and "color" interchangeably. As my color studies have advanced, I now prefer to use the terms to mean distinctly different things. The "Tints, Shades, and Tones" section of this page reveals why:

http://www.tigercolor.com/color-lab...ry-intro.htm

Well..., since the original post and replies of this thread, I have successfully refreshed many 1851-57 3 cent stamps using the method recommended.

I was simply noticing that Don is suggesting that it is better to use terminology that everybody else uses. I happen to agree. However, it wasn't very long ago that he was taking issue with the incorrect use of the word "shade" despite the fact that use of the word to describe all manner of color peculiarities is ubiquitous.

I use oxidize because it is the standard terminology that Siegel, Linn's Glossary and everyone else uses.

Me too ^^^

Ummm Oxidation of iron for example takes iron from a Fe+2 state to a Fe+3 state (so an electron is removed - or more precisely transferred to the oxidizing agent). Reduction is the opposite (adding an electron from a reducing agent).

In the case we are talking about, the acting discoloring agent is sulfur (or a sulfur compound), but I don't know if it is an oxidizer or a reducer. We then use H2O2 to reverse the process (although I am not sure if we really get back to the original chemical compound - I recall reading that the top layer might be something that is transparent and thus not the original ink compound, but I do not know if this is correct).

edited to add I wrote this after only looking at the posts on the first page and hadn't seen the second page

Winston,

First you say



Then you portray me as 'taking issue'. This is what I said in the other thread.




I literally called it a 'minor clarification' and went on to make my main point that colors are a difficult subject and that even the color nomenclature is confusing.

It is unclear to me how you took away from that post that I was requiring anyone to use the term 'shade' or that I was 'taking issue'.

And for the record my opinion is this; if there are commonly misunderstood words than it is best to use them both. This is my personal opinion, not a forum rule or requirement.
Don