Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I recently acquired a nice small collection of early Antigua. After many hours I still have a few unidentified stamps. I've been using Clarity, but it isn't perfect and is damn costly. I might spend more money (maybe) if there was a device that detected pretty much all watermarks without using fluid.
Any thoughts from the group?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I still use lighter fluid for bulk cheaper stamps. and I use Clarity if it may be a better one about the same results. I have used a few water mark lights I don't think they are as good. Good light or Sun light is the best and water mark or lighter fluid.
Richard
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
And some times you can use a scanner with Water Mark fluid. you can blow it up
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Carbon tetrachloride used to be the gold standard - dried quickly and helped on those yellows. It worked great on slot car tires as well. It was banned from commercial use back in 1970 and is not available to the general public, not even sure if dry cleaners can still use it.
I have a Sign o Scope and results are mixed. Frankly, as rwillis29 suggested it is easier to take a scan of the back of the stamp (with or without fluid) and play with brightness, contrast and color hue and saturation.
Hope this helps
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I have Clarity fluid, Supersafe fluid, and a Sherlock watermark detector. The Supersafe has a nasty smell that lingers a long time so rarely use it. The Sherlock works best with stamps that have hinge remnants. It really is not worth the value but it does give you unlimited time to study. I have tried the wet scanner approach but my challenge is just the lack of experience.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
T3 Signoscope!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
T3 signoscope watermark detector looks like a very interesting device with a %7E$300 price tag.
Here is a discussion of the T3 vs Epson V600 scanner. It is a lengthy discussion so scroll down thru the discussion.
https://thestampforum.boards.net/thread/ ...
Login to Like
this post
If I did jump should I go with Sherlock or T3?
Login to Like
this post
All I say is NOT to get a T2, you will find this model is always $100 cheaper, but it bends the stamps, on of my cub members learned the HARD way...
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I have not used both so cannot offer an opinion.
Login to Like
this post
I have been using Coleman camp fuel for decades as watermark detection fluid. Kinda stinky to those who can smell (I can't). Never had a problem with it.
Often, I'll take a picture of the stamp floating in fluid with my phone and then send that to my computer for use.
Remember that, when "stamp collecting" was in its infancy (1860s-1880s), collectors weren't as concerned about damaging stamps when they were removed from a cover. So, instead of soaking, I believe it was much more common to just carefully tear the stamp off the cover. I see this a LOT on the seated Britannia stamps (1850-1874). Sometimes, you can barely see that scrap of cover paper left on the back of the stamp, but it's enough to obscure part of the watermark. So, if there is any question, I will soak the stamp first to make sure any spurious paper remnants are removed.
Part of distinguishing the small star and large star watermarks on British Colonial stamps is just to look at a LOT of them to get your eyeball calibrated.
Here's an image I am using in presentations to show "split-star" watermarks:
-Paul
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
....I know, I know...this is likely a dead horse. However, there are times when using fluid and a black dish just doesn't disclose a watermark. In some cases, it can't be made out because of a bunch of penciling from some idiot on the rear.
I recently acquired a nice small collection of early Antigua. After many hours I still have a few unidentified stamps. I've been using Clarity, but it isn't perfect and is damn costly. I might spend more money (maybe) if there was a device that detected pretty much all watermarks without using fluid.
Any thoughts from the group?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
I still use lighter fluid for bulk cheaper stamps. and I use Clarity if it may be a better one about the same results. I have used a few water mark lights I don't think they are as good. Good light or Sun light is the best and water mark or lighter fluid.
Richard
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
And some times you can use a scanner with Water Mark fluid. you can blow it up
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
06:09:13pm
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
Carbon tetrachloride used to be the gold standard - dried quickly and helped on those yellows. It worked great on slot car tires as well. It was banned from commercial use back in 1970 and is not available to the general public, not even sure if dry cleaners can still use it.
I have a Sign o Scope and results are mixed. Frankly, as rwillis29 suggested it is easier to take a scan of the back of the stamp (with or without fluid) and play with brightness, contrast and color hue and saturation.
Hope this helps
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
I have Clarity fluid, Supersafe fluid, and a Sherlock watermark detector. The Supersafe has a nasty smell that lingers a long time so rarely use it. The Sherlock works best with stamps that have hinge remnants. It really is not worth the value but it does give you unlimited time to study. I have tried the wet scanner approach but my challenge is just the lack of experience.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
T3 Signoscope!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
T3 signoscope watermark detector looks like a very interesting device with a %7E$300 price tag.
Here is a discussion of the T3 vs Epson V600 scanner. It is a lengthy discussion so scroll down thru the discussion.
https://thestampforum.boards.net/thread/ ...
Login to Like
this post
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
If I did jump should I go with Sherlock or T3?
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
All I say is NOT to get a T2, you will find this model is always $100 cheaper, but it bends the stamps, on of my cub members learned the HARD way...
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
I have not used both so cannot offer an opinion.
Login to Like
this post
01:28:21pm
re: ID'ing watermarks....what do you use?
I have been using Coleman camp fuel for decades as watermark detection fluid. Kinda stinky to those who can smell (I can't). Never had a problem with it.
Often, I'll take a picture of the stamp floating in fluid with my phone and then send that to my computer for use.
Remember that, when "stamp collecting" was in its infancy (1860s-1880s), collectors weren't as concerned about damaging stamps when they were removed from a cover. So, instead of soaking, I believe it was much more common to just carefully tear the stamp off the cover. I see this a LOT on the seated Britannia stamps (1850-1874). Sometimes, you can barely see that scrap of cover paper left on the back of the stamp, but it's enough to obscure part of the watermark. So, if there is any question, I will soak the stamp first to make sure any spurious paper remnants are removed.
Part of distinguishing the small star and large star watermarks on British Colonial stamps is just to look at a LOT of them to get your eyeball calibrated.
Here's an image I am using in presentations to show "split-star" watermarks:
-Paul
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.