A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Stamps » General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Doubly fugitive ink



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 29th 07, 11:03 AM posted to rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
JJ[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Doubly fugitive ink

I have seen this mentioned many times both on the net and in philatelic
publications but cannot find a definition for it.

Googling just shows it being used in many places, but never with an
explanation.

I wonder if the authors of the pieces where it is used actually know
what the expression means!

My best guess is that it means that the ink is fugitive to both water
and at least one other solvent. Can anyone confirm?
Ads
  #2  
Old April 29th 07, 02:44 PM posted to rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Blair (TC)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,199
Default Doubly fugitive ink

On Apr 29, 6:03 am, (JJ) wrote:
I have seen this mentioned many times both on the net and in philatelic
publications but cannot find a definition for it.

Googling just shows it being used in many places, but never with an
explanation.

I wonder if the authors of the pieces where it is used actually know
what the expression means!

My best guess is that it means that the ink is fugitive to both water
and at least one other solvent. Can anyone confirm?


Hello:

You are correct. They are soluable in BOTH water and chemicals.
Here is part of an article by Peter Mansfield for The Revenue Society
(UK).
The FULL article can be seen at:
http://www.revenuesociety.org.uk/fea...icles/pm2.html

Blair


De La Rue had long been concerned with, even obsessed by, the
development and use of fugitive inks for their Revenue stamps: inks
which would run or blur at any attempt to remove cancellations by
water or chemicals, and in this way protect against illegal re-use.

By the onset of the 1870s they had determined that the two most
suitable ink-colours for this purpose would be a spectrum of lilac
through purple to violet, and some kind of green. These inks were
used for the revised "small" Foreign Bill series from 1872, and for
the first Key Types, printed between 1872 and 1875. The pounds
were reddish violet, the shillings dull (grey) green and the pence
were lilac. This gave rise to a clearly-visible tripartite colour
system,
with a different colour for each value-tier.

These colours seemed to work well; but De La Rue weren't
completely satisfied, and when a new overprint system was
introduced for Key Type 2 in 1875, the composition of the inks for
the pounds and shilling tiers was also changed, and highly soluble
varieties of these colours replaced the originals [Note 2a]. The
difference between the soluble and non-soluble versions of these
two colours is one of the best ways of distinguishing between the
second and first Key Types: especially with the £5 and 10s values
whose overprint colour stayed the same, where two printings are
not recognised in the catalogues.[Note 3] This change was also
applied to some of the lilacs and purples used in Chancery Court,
Common Law Courts, Companies Registration, Foreign Bill and
the "own type" Judicature Fees from 1876. For the first three of
these appropriations the change is noted by Gilbert & Koehler and
the FPSC, which both list an 1875 issue in which "violet" or "purple"
is replaced by "violet vif" or "violet": the FPSC also notes the
change
in Foreign Bill, but doesn't date it. It is Booth who uses the term
"soluble ink" in his (D) series of Chancery Court, in his (A) series
of Common Law Courts, and in Companies Registration, in all
cases linking it with "deep" or "bright" reddish violet (though never
offering precise dates): with Foreign Bill he notes that "doubly
fugitive ink", a term used for a regular variety of both violet
pounds
and green shillings in his 1872-81 listing, contains "an exceedingly
soluble blue ingredient".

The soluble inks, however, were not an immense success. Both
colours were subject to unacceptable levels of rubbing, and in
addition the blue-greens had a marked tendency to undergo colour-
shifts of various kinds, ranging from turquoise to cobalt blue.

1875-80. Examples of extreme "blue-shifting" in the shillings tier
http://www.revenuesociety.org.uk/fea...les/pm/A24.jpg
http://www.revenuesociety.org.uk/fea...les/pm/A25.jpg
http://www.revenuesociety.org.uk/fea...les/pm/A26.jpg
http://www.revenuesociety.org.uk/fea...les/pm/A27.jpg

So De La Rue's chemists were sent back to their laboratories,
and the third major change made in 1880-81 was to introduce
different kinds of ink: still doubly fugitive, but with much lighter
"non-rubbing" shades of reddish lilac and dull, sometimes
yellowish green replacing the soluble reddish violets and blue-
greens of the preceding period.

Notes:

[2a] In an article published in The GB Journal in 1986
(Vol 24 No 2), the late Marcus Samuel wrote: "The earliest
reference to these inks so far seen by the writer is dated
17 February 1874. On this day Ormond Hill [for the Board of
Commissioners of Inland Revenue] had written to De La Rue & Co,
"I have brought before the Board the specimens with which
you furnished me of printing in doubly fugitive inks .... and
the Board has decided that these inks shall be adopted in
the preparation of all the adhesive stamps printed by you,
excepting the Postage and Penny Inland Revenue stamps. ....
Please to carry out the change as soon as practicable and
inform me when you commence printing in the new inks."

[3] This doesn't work for the lilac 3d, which likewise had a
substantially unchanged overprint colour, but at least for
some appropriations there are other differences:
see the Revenue Journal, December 2005, p 100.





  #3  
Old April 29th 07, 02:54 PM posted to rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Rod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,837
Default Doubly fugitive ink


"JJ" wrote in message
...
I have seen this mentioned many times both on the net and in philatelic
publications but cannot find a definition for it.
My best guess is that it means that the ink is fugitive to both water
and at least one other solvent. Can anyone confirm?


Good question
I cannot comment exactly on its meaning, but enough to
suggest your guess is incorrect.

My assumption is that they are both soluble in water and
light sensitive or sensitive somehow to "tampering" (rubbing?)
There are two "doubly fugitive" inks, purple and green.

The reaction to a solvent appears to be a further quality
apart from being a part of "doubly fugitive"

Look forward, as you, to being enlightened on this subject.














  #4  
Old May 3rd 07, 12:32 AM posted to rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Rod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,837
Default Doubly fugitive ink


"JJ" wrote in message
...
I have seen this mentioned many times both on the net and in philatelic
publications but cannot find a definition for it.


Response from other enquiries FYI:

Dear Rodney
Single Fugitive Ink: the color runs when washed with organic
solvents
Double Fugitive Ink: the color runs when washed with organic
solvents or water
Best regards,
Tim Burgess



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fugitive Rhodesian admirals [email protected] General Discussion 10 August 15th 06 01:16 PM
Curiosity Corner #224: Spot the fugitive. Rodney General Discussion 2 June 9th 06 01:42 AM
Fugitive Ink-Puerto Rico-Rom Occ Rodney General Discussion 1 July 13th 04 04:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.