Where Is The Grill On This Stamp?

That's the merchandiser approach. How about thinking like a conservator? Does adding graphite alter the state of the stamp? Is it less "original" after graphite is added? Is such alteration needed to preserve the stamp?

Most of the time it is a crutch to compensate for a lack of skill or equipment for examining a grill. It may be a cheaper alternative to submitting it for the opinion of a more competent authority. Does that justify making the changes? For some people it does, especially for low value or previously damaged stamps. Paper conservators may have a different view.

FWIW my opinion is that if you permanently alter a stamp from its original state, then it should be mentioned in the description at the time of sale. Graphite, pencil notes, authenticity marks, owner handstamps, etc. That way the buyer gets to determine whether or not that stamp is one they would still wish to own. I have a couple of stamps signed by renowned experts that benefit from the alteration. But they are no longer mint state, even though one remains unused.

Add graphite, that's alteration. Erase graphite, that's restoration. It's just a question of degree. That seems reasonable.

Great info thanks

Does this include hinging a stamp? Considering the adhesion of modern hinges this could well fall into the same category.

The marketplace is probably one of the best arbitrators of the practice. If true then the question becomes, 'are stamps with graphite bringing less than those without it'? Another possible metric may be, 'do certifying bodies note graphite as a fault'.

The majority of hobbyists do not play in the rarified atmosphere of five figure+ stamps and covers. We are just trying to properly ID the dregs and leftovers of the philatelic 'whales'. That said, I concur with essayk that learning to become good stewards is an important quality no matter what level of the hobby. So please consider working to find a grill without graphite before using more 'no brainer' (i.e. lazy) intrusive methods. I think we can all agree that improperly mucking up the back of stamp with heavy use of graphite is not acceptable in any situation.
Don

"Most of the time it is a crutch to compensate for a lack of skill or equipment for examining a grill."

Not correct. I assure you the people at the PF are highly skilled, as am I and many others. It is ALWAYS done to make a weak grill visible in order to identify it. No other reason.

"Most of the time" includes the myriad of testing not done by the PF.

No one disputes the intent of the practice. What is under dispute is its necessity in the face of ready alternatives. Or are we to say that the application of graphite is the ultimate and most definitive test for a grill of any method which might be used?

For the PF perhaps it is a fast track determination; a cutting of the corner so to speak, and for expediency they wink at the consequences. When the PF has access to less invasive methods of examination but prefers to smear on the goup anyway, I say "shame on them." They are deliberately altering the stamp. OTOH if the stamp in question already has more serious trouble than the graphite would bring, then cui bono.

In the end I am guardian of my material. If I were to submit a grilled item to the PF and request that they not use graphite on it, would they refuse the candidate?

A former PF expert (Initials RD) has informed me how he despises graphite being used to identify grills.

essayk.

I asked the question does leaving graphite on the back, devalue or harm the stamp ?.

It was a simple question, that is turning into the usual tirade of anger and name calling.

I asked because I have stamps with grills that are not easily visible that I would like to identify. They are used and not high catalogue stamps.

You say it should not be done. So can you tell me a fairly simple method of detecting what grill I have on my stamps without altering or damaging them ?.

I have not seen this conversation devolve into a "tirade of anger and name calling." Despite genuine difference of opinion, I have not seen any inappropriate posts in this discussion, nor any insults directed at any other members. Not sure why you are making your claim.




The mechanism is actually quite simple, but explaining it meaningfully to someone not already familiar with it is not. A small, portable high intensity light source and a 16x jewelers loupe in a gooseneck stand are needed. The stamp is held under the loupe's field of view with light shining from the side, and angled around to give a clear view of grill points. By this expedient one may see the entire grill a little bit at a time. when the points are shallow faint and small, the light may still be angled to give a profile view.

When I was expertising for PSE this is one of the methods I came to rely on.

"For the PF perhaps it is a fast track determination; a cutting of the corner so to speak, and for expediency they wink at the consequences".
the PF does not cut corners on identification of either stamps or grills. by saying that they "wink" at consequences demeans the valuable work they (and other expert committees) do for the hobby. all of the ways mentioned are,
and should be used when appropriate. all owners requests to use or not use a long established method are followed.

"Most of the time" includes the myriad of testing not done by the PF.
please explain that statement.

"The mechanism is actually quite simple, but explaining it meaningfully to someone not already familiar with it is not. A small, portable high intensity light source and a 16x jewelers loupe in a gooseneck stand are needed. The stamp is held under the loupe's field of view with light shining from the side, and angled around to give a clear view of grill points. By this expedient one may see the entire grill a little bit at a time. when the points are shallow faint and small, the light may still be angled to give a profile view".

If this works well then the grill is already sufficiently visible. There are times when it is not, and this will not make it so. A bit of graphite does. There is a certain amount of skill involved in using it, but this idea that it damages or ruins a stamp, or changes the value, or is harmful in any way when done properly is just nonsense. I have examined hundreds of grilled stamps; only a very small percentage of them actually need this treatment.

The PF is not alone in using graphite on stamps. Testimony on this list has made it clear that many collectors will try the graphite test, usually with less skill than the PF, in order to spare themselves the time and expense of submitting it to more expert eye. I surmise that in aggregate far more graphite is applied under those circumstances than is used by the PF in any given year.

I think that should be discouraged, and that the PF should set the example, and here is why:





You have not heard any of this from me. All I can do is make my point again, hopefully more clearly.

Since graphite is not native to these stamps as they were originally produced, adding graphite to a stamp, for whatever reason, irreversibly alters it. You are changing the state from its original state, which never had any graphite in the paper at all.

revcollector, whose opinion I value, is insisting that this alteration should not, and for him does not, make any effective difference for collectors. But collectors who want unaltered, original state (dare I say "virgin") stamps only, for whatever reason, face a shrinking pool of collectible candidates, by their standards, as this practice is applied generally.

When done "properly" this alteration may not weaken the paper or stain the ink, or do whatever we otherwise wish to call "harm," to the stamp. But there really can be no debate that adding graphite to stamp paper moves that stamp a step away from its original state. Moreover, the fact of that addition can be minimized but never entirely undone.

If you wish to counter these points, then the most effective tack is to minimize the importance of what we might call "original state collecting." But then we dredge up a whole new can of worms vis a vis, gum, repair, perforation "chads" or what not.

But from the standpoint of original state conservation, you really should stay away from the use of graphite on your stamps, especially if you are not skilled at it.

Once a stamp has been used it is no longer in an "original unadulterated state" anyway. The gum is gone and there is a variable but significant amount of ink that has been added to it. A tiny bit of graphite used to prove which specific stamp it is can hardly compare with that. And this method has been used for over 100 years, it is hardly some new phenomenon. It's a much better method then using a pencil to circle the grill, a fairly common practice over the years.

Cancellation inks are different from the use of graphite. Don't try to conflate the two. One is necessary and one isn't.




That reads more like an excuse than a good argument for the continued use of graphite.

essayk

I said.



You said.



Thanks for taking the time, but I am no wiser. I will leave them as they are, marked with grill and guess the catalogue number.