Reprinted from  The U.S. Specialist, September 1999, p. 423.
Copyright ©1999 Bureau Issues Association, Inc.  All rights reserved.

This article may not be reproduced without the express written consent of the author and the Bureau Issues Association.

New Product Review:
Clarity^TM - A Watermark Detecting Fluid

By Larry S. Weiss

2485 Rio Grande Circle,  Naperville, IL  60565

   A new watermarking detecting fluid named "clarity^TM" (Figure 1) is said to improve watermark detection through "crisp, clear, sharply defined images." My review shows it delivers on that promise and has other desirable features.

The Problem    Distinguishing stamps that have either no watermark, a single-line "USPS" watermark or a double-line "USPS" watermark is a key task for those tackling the U.S. Washington-Franklin heads. The watermarks are often lightly impressed and only a part of one letter may appear on a stamp (see Figure 2).    When examined by wet watermarking techniques, certain ink colors (particularly yellows, oranges, light greens, and ultramarines) compound the problems by quickly showing through wetted paper. Even the common 2¢ red Washington-Franklins are subject to this problem. Heavy cancels or even moderate cancels can also interfere. Watermark determination can be further complicated by the presence of thins or other damage.    In addition to watermarks, examination in fluid is used to detect stamp damage such as thins, tears, creases or adhering material. Repairs and alterations may also be detected with watermarking. The Solutions    Philatelists today have their choice of wet watermarking or several dry watermarking techniques.

Figure 1. (32K)

Wet watermarking, dropping a stamp into a fluid and observing carefully as it wets, is the traditional and time-honored method. Newer "dry techniques" include the use of pouches of viscous fluid (Morley-Bright "Roll-a-tector" and "Inst-a-tector" devices) or light reflection (Signoscope detector). Some of the dry watermarking equipment can be expensive and all are more time consuming than wet watermarking.    Frequently, good technique when wet watermarking provides faster results comparable to the dry techniques, making philatelists generally favor that approach. Dry techniques are often reserved as a backup for difficult items or are not used due to lack of equipment. Thus, good wet watermarking technique and proper choice of fluid becomes of paramount importance to collectors. Wet Watermarking - Choosing a Fluid

Figure 2. (73K)

   The choice of fluid for wet watermarking is critical. The fluid most often favored by philatelists has changed over the years as philatelists seek to solve different problems in wet watermarking.

   Water is unsuitable since it would harm the gum on unused stamps and it has poor "wetting" characteristics making a watermark hard to detect. Carbon tetrachloride, a frequent choice of early philatelists, has happily passed out of use because of its carcinogenic and other undesirable properties. Philatelists have used benzene, benzine and other oil-based solvents, all with some success and many problems.

For photogravure stamps, special care in the choice of fluid needs to be taken to avoid dissolving the printing ink. Fortunately, that is not a problem encountered on Washington-Franklin heads. Trichlorethane and related chlorinated fluorocarbons have been packaged and sold as watermarking fluids (Figure 3), providing the lack of solvency of photogravure inks. But these fluids present a significant problem in evaporating much too quickly and poor watermark detectability resulting from too quick wetting of stamps. Additional problems with that group of fluids are high cost, noxious fumes and environmental damage.    Lighter fluid (naphtha), in particular the brand "Ronsonol®" (Figure 4), has been a long-standing favorite of many collectors despite some undesirable properties. It has provided the best watermark and stamp damage detectability and, thereby, has become the standard against which any newcomers to the wet watermarking field are to be judged. Its main faults are slow stamp drying, noxious fumes and flammability.

Figure 3. (52K)

Figure 4. (28K)

Development of Clarity^TM

   According to text on the sample bottle of clarity^TM provided by the manufacturer:

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

   Literature accompanying the sample of clarity^TM noted that, when APS was asked what the characteristics of an ideal watermark detecting fluid would be, they replied:

I would add the following to that list:

   Clarity^TM was developed by Preservation Technologies, L.P., a firm that holds a contract with the Library of Congress to assist in the preservation of books and documents. They have other products for paper preservation, including "Archival Mist" to make paper acid-free and "Bookkeeper" which they tag as "a deacidification spray for the archival and preservation community." The company mentions stamps among the possible uses of Archival Mist, but readers are cautioned that no review of this material has been performed by the philatelic community and it is not recommended for stamps at this time. Further information on these products may be viewed on the company's web site: www.ptlp.com.

Watermark Detection Performance of ClarityTM    Comparisons were made between images in clarityTM and those in Ronsonol® lighter fluid. Washington-Franklin stamps of various denominations and colors were examined using the same good watermarking techniques.

Figure 5. (59K)

   Certain stamps with dark inks are of no particular difficulty in Ronsonol®. This group includes the 1¢ greens, 5¢ blue, and 7¢ black. For this group, Ronsonol® and clarity^TM performed equally (see Figure 5).

Stamps with troublesome printing inks include the 6¢ orange, 8¢ olive, 10¢ yellow, 15¢ ultramarine, 20¢ light blue and 30¢ dark orange. The most difficult is often the 10¢ yellow. On a difficult yellow stamp chosen for testing, clarityTM provided a clearly superior image of the watermark (see Figure 6).    Thins, adherences, tears and creases were equally discernable in clarityTM and in Ronsonol® on the dark colored stamps. With the troublesome colors, these defects were easier to see in clarityTM. Stamps with cancels were easier to watermark in clarityTM.    Comparison of results from clarityTM with that from dry watermark detecting equipment showed that good wet watermarking technique and use of clarityTM can provide almost equivalent watermark detection capability. This makes the high cost and cumbersome operations of dry watermarking equipment less important for the general philatelist.

Figure 6. (205K)

"Dripping" vs. "Dipping"

   Instructions on the bottle of clarity^TM have you place the stamp in a watermark tray and then drop some fluid onto the back of the stamp. I call this the "dripping" technique and do not recommend it. While it minimizes the amount of fluid used, it does not evenly wet the stamp and, therefore, does not realize the full potential of this method of watermarking. I prefer to form a puddle of fluid and hold the stamp horizontally above the fluid, then drop the stamp so that all parts wet simultaneously. This technique has provided improved visibility of watermarks. It does use more fluid, but the cost of fluid is not that significant.

Fumes, Odors, and Flammability

   Being a natural-born worrier, I have always been concerned about the fumes from Ronsonol®. The product was never intended for use as a watermark fluid and it was not contemplated that its users would place their eyes and noses over an open tray of the fluid, hotly breathing over it as they try to see a watermark on a stamp. The odor certainly did not help matters.

   Clarity^TM may or may not be any better for your health -- its formulation is a proprietary matter now being patented. Clarity^TM, however, does not have any odor I could detect. At least that is an improvement.

   Attempts to get clarity^TM to ignite using a match showed it was not flammable. I did not try the same experiment with Ronsonol® since I like my eyebrows and house and do not know if my wife paid the fire insurance.

Drying Time

   Clarity^TM showed a great advantage in drying time. When removed from the fluid and placed on a clean white paper, Ronsonol®-soaked stamps took about 1¸ minutes to dry while those dipped in clarity^TM took only 15 seconds -- just one-sixth the time. Instructions with clarity say drying will occur in "less than a minute" and I would urge allowing a full minute before placing the stamp in a mount.

   Experience with Ronsonol® shows that the completion of drying is not something you can readily sense. After a stamp looks dry, it still has an odor indicating some fluid has yet to evaporate. I had adopted a practice of waiting about five minutes before placing a stamp in a mount. While pure naphtha may evaporate quickly, the less pure lighter fluid seems to contain compounds that take considerably longer to evaporate completely. No residue was noted with either fluid.

Availability

   I first became aware of clarity^TM from an advertisement in the July issue of  The American Philatelist (p. 668). That advertisement did not mention any specific source of the product.

   Clarity^TM is sold in a 100 ml. (3.4 oz.) plastic bottle with a flip-top dispensing cap similar to other watermarking fluids. Interestingly, the bottle is of the same size and shape as the 4 oz. "Super Safe®" fluid. Both came filled fully and each appears to have the same amount of fluid.

   Another interesting feature of the bottle is that it bears an APS logo, as if there is an APS endorsement of the product. According to Robert E. Lamb, APS Executive Director, no such endorsement exists and APS is not involved in the marketing of clarity^TM. Their role was to stimulate the development of the product for the benefit of philately. The APS logo was permitted to be used in recognition of the role the society served in development of the product.

   According to the literature sent to me with the sample, clarity^TM is available "wherever philatelic supplies are sold" or it can be ordered directly from Preservation Technologies, L.P., by calling the 800 number given below.

   A check with a few of my favorite retailers found them unaware of the existence of the product and I was the first to ask for it. Currently, Subway and Scott are the first firms to stock the product. PTLP plans to attend the August, 1999 APS Stampshow in Cleveland, at which time many more dealers will be become aware of the product. I expect by the time this review appears, the distribution will be improved, but not widely available. If your regular retailer does not have it, order by calling the 800 number.

Cost

   Clarity^TM has a suggested retail price of $15.95. When ordered directly from Preservation Technologies, L.P., there will be an additional amount of approximately $5 for postage and handling per bottle. Until distribution is wider than it is currently, PTLP is waiving the postage and handling charge.

   As a comparison, "Super Safe®" retails at $8.75 per 4 oz. bottle. (Note that clarity^TM came in the same size bottle which, while marked as 3.4 oz., seemed to have the same amount of fluid.)

   Ronsonol® is sold in varying size plastic containers, with the cost of a 12 oz. container about $4. That makes clarity^TM about 12 times more costly per ounce of fluid than Ronsonol®. This suggests that if you can deal with the fumes, flammability, and slow drying time, Ronsonol® may be utilized on a general basis. When a tough case of watermarking arises, clarity should then be called upon to get the most out of wet watermarking.

   My estimate is that one bottle of clarity^TM will be sufficient to watermark about 200 stamps using the preferred technique of dropping a dry stamp into a puddle of the fluid. That would mean a cost of about 4¢ per stamp. Considering the saved drying time, lack of odor and flammability, that cost is low enough to make clarity^TM my choice for general use.

Summary

   Clarity^TM permits achieving increased accuracy and detectability in wet watermarking, fulfilling its stated objectives. Its cost is about 12 times that of the current "standard" fluid, Ronsonol®, and that may limit the success of clarity^TM in capturing the market. There will be a continued place for all the currently available fluids and dry techniques, each having its particular situation where it excels. Clarity^TM will be welcomed by many philatelists, especially those who deal with difficult or valuable philatelic material.

For More Information

   In addition to normal mail, fax and phone support, clarity^TM has email and web-site support:

   Preservation Technologies, L.P.
   111 Thomson Park Drive
   Cranberry Twp., NJ 16066

   Phone 1-800-416-2665; 1-724-779-2111

   web site: www.ptlp.com  --  email:  mail@ptlp.com

Acknowledgement

   Thanks go to John Larson for assistance in reviewing this product.

Return to  The U.S. Specialist