This fall, an anonymous APS supporter donated a Foster + Freeman VSC 6000 to the American Philatelic Expertization Service. This scientific tool has been described by its manufacturer as a “system designed for the verification of all questioned documents,” designed originally for forensic research in law enforcement. But “questioned documents” is a perfect description of the stamps submitted to APEX.
I was originally trained on the VSC 6000 several years ago at the National Postal Museum in Washington, DC. I was most fortunate that Tom Lera, this year’s APS Luff Award Winner for Distinguished Philatelic Research, recently stopped by to retrain me on the finer points of using this powerful analytical tool, as pictured below.
From left: APS Director of Expertizing Gary Wayne Loew; the VSC 6000; Tom Lera, 2019 APS Luff Award winner.
The Foster + Freeman website describes some of the applications for which the VSC 6000 can be used. Most are applicable to the analysis of stamps and covers. For example, we can search for UV-activated fluorescing inks using short, medium and long wave ultraviolet light (UV). Tampering, such as the removal or addition of postmarks, can be revealed via high magnification and multi-spectrum lighting. Oblique lighting can be used to highlight surface features such as intaglio printing, grills or creases.
The VSC 6000 also features transmitted light (both visible and UV) to reveal watermarks, repairs, thins, and creases by looking “through” a stamp. The use of different inks on a stamp can be evaluated using hyperspectral imaging. Such imaging is also helpful in the detection of forgeries and stamp alterations. Various lighting combinations can highlight taggants or their absence on a stamp. These are but a few of the VSC 6000’s capabilities that are relevant to analytical philately in general and expertizing in particular.
Tom and I sat down with about 20 stamps submitted for authentication. We identified the challenge or challenges associated with each patient, and the analyses we would use to get our questions answered.
Each stamp or cover had been examined by members of the APEX Expert Committee. In each case, the member asked that we perform additional testing. I’m delighted to note that in most cases the VSC 6000 enabled us to obtain a definitive result, meaning APEX can confidently issue a correct and robust opinion.
In a few cases, the results were ambiguous and some questions remain. No one tool has all the answers, but we are indeed fortunate and grateful to have a VSC 6000.
Let’s take a look at some of the philatelic challenges Tom and I explored.
Watermarks
Figure 1. Submitted to APEX as Great Britain Scott 27e, an elusive watermark-inverted variety of the typographed 1856 6-penny lilac, the normal Heraldic Emblems watermark is shown alongside the used single. From the VSC 6000 image (final image) we were able to determine that the watermark was shifted downward and to the left, but is right-side up.
Recently, the stamp in Figure 1 was submitted to APEX as Great Britain Scott 27e, an elusive inverted watermark variety of the typographed 1856 6-penny lilac listed by Scott only in its Classic Specialized Catalogue of Stamps and Covers of the World Including U.S. 1840–1940. The normal Heraldic Emblems watermark for that stamp is shown alongside the stamp. The Expert Committee could not coax an adequate view of the watermark from this 1856 stamp. The VSC 6000 revealed the image on the right. From this, we were able to determine that the watermark was shifted downward and to the left but is right-side up. Thus, the stamp is a Scott 27 with a normal but shifted watermark. The VSC 6000’s first case at APEX was solved!
Figure 2. A collector wanted to know if his used 1875 1c black Liberty on buff postal card shown here was Scott UX4 - with the scarce small "USPOD" watermark (reproduced courtesy Amos Media) in Figure 3 - or the more common unwatermarked version, Scott UX5.
Figure 3. The scarce small "USPOD" postcard watermark found on Scott UX4 (courtesy Amos Media)
Sometimes considerable effort is required to detect and positively identify a watermark, as was the case with the 1¢ black Liberty on buff postal card seen in Figure 2. That design of that 1875 card is easily identified in the Scott catalog as image PC2, but exists in both a rare USPOD-watermarked variant (Scott UX4 reproduced courtesy Amos Media) in Figure 3, and a much more common unwatermarked version (UX5). The Expert Committee thought there might have been evidence of a watermark, although shining a bright light through the card was inconclusive. Even for the VSC 6000 it was a struggle, but the hazy image was sufficiently clear to confirm that the postal card is the elusive watermarked Scott UX4.
The VSC 6000 can perform tests and produce data and images, but the interpretation of the results still requires understanding the underlying science and the experienced judgment of philatelic experts.
Cancellations
Stamps cancelled 100 or 150 years ago often have been through some rough times, especially the assault of environmental agents. Cancellations may have been faint originally and may since have faded further. Other times, philatelic fakers have used various means to eliminate a cancellation. In both cases, an inexpensive used stamp might be mistaken for a substantially more valuable unused example.
Traditional means such as UV light often reveals an all-but-undetectable postmark, but in extreme cases the VSC 6000 may detect cancels when other means fail to do so.
A pretty blue patient was submitted for authentication as an unused example without gum of the 1861 1¢ ultramarine Franklin produced by the Continental Bank Note Co., Scott 63a. The Expert Committee easily determined that the stamp was pale blue, (Scott 63), but was of two minds as to whether it was used or unused. To the naked eye, the stamp seems all but pristine. Under UV light, one expert saw “a dark spot at top left and the stamp is splotchy” and concluded that the stamp was used.
Examination by the VSC 6000 revealed more comprehensive details. Normal VSC floodlighting from above brought out more of that “splotchy” appearance, which was reinforced under UV wavelengths. But it was backlighting the stamp that was convincing. Clear evidence of a faint cancel was apparent, and the stamp was certified as used.
Fluorescence
Two 1899 2¢ red Washington type IV sheet stamps for expertizing that were determined by the Expert Committee to both be Scott 279Bc. Of the rare third color variety of this stamp, Scott’s footnote reads “the pinkish rose carmine shade is essentially the same shade as the rose carmine stamp, but the ink contains a pink pigment from an aniline ink that causes fluorescence under ultraviolet light.”
The challenge is that the small amount of aniline ink can produce inconsistent or extremely faint fluorescence on individual stamps. Conventional UV lighting may not be conclusive.
That was the case with the two patient stamps seen side-by-side in Figure 4. The debate in both cases does not revolve around a matter of stamp valuation. Both shades have the same Scott catalog values. This is simply a matter of correctly identifying the shade and issuing the proper certificate. (Figures 4a and 4b)
Figure 4a. Mint copy of the 1899 2c red Washington type IV sheet stamp Scott 279Bc.
Figure 4b. A used copy of the 1899 2c red Washington type IV sheet stamp Scott 279Bc.
The unused example on the left appears brighter and has whiter paper than the used example on the right, but that is normal between unused and used stamps. The only question is shade.
The Expert Committee believed the unused patient to be the aniline shade of pinkish rose carmine and the used patient to be the rose carmine shade. Examination under traditional UV was suggestive but not conclusive. (Figures 4c and 4d)
Figures 4c and 4d. The catalog identifies three shades for Scott 279Bc (Figures 4a and 4b), including a scarce shade that "contains a pink pigment from an aniline ink that causes fluorescence under ultraviolet light." Under UV light from the VSC 6000, the unused copy glows distincively, whereas the used one does not.
However, the two images in Figures 4c and 4d were made using the VSC 6000 with its multiple wavelength UV options. The unused stamp demonstrates a convincing but not overwhelming fluorescence, exactly as the Scott footnote led us to expect. The used stamp shows as totally unresponsive under the VSC 6000 UV illumination, with no evidence of fluorescence. Our Expert Committee got it right both times, and our certificates were issued with robust conclusions and reliable results. Again, the VSC 6000 supplemented rather than supplanted the expertise of the Expert Committee.
During the day-long session with Tom Lera, we managed to go through about 20 different cases. In addition to watermark and cancellation challenges, we differentiated among shades of very similar black stamps, assessed the legitimacy of several airmail overprints, and hunted (in vain, as it turned out) for elusive traces of albino overprints.
In a future column, I’ll revisit some of these cases and share with you how the VSC 6000 is assisting our Expert Committee to produce rigorously researched and vetted certificates of authenticity for APS members and the philatelic community. Indeed, the VSC 6000 will be used by the members of the Expert Committee to reconfirm the holdings in their own reference collections!
The VSC 6000 is a very important tool, but there are many other tools in the arsenal of analytical philately. This important new equipment represents a major first step in the establishment of the APS Expertizing Laboratory. But it is only a step.
I welcome your questions, comments, and suggestions on any philatelic topic. Please feel free to email me at [email protected]. I look forward to hearing from you.
Editor's Note: The column was published in the December 2019 issue of the American Philatelist, available for members to read digitally. We will be posting the columns of APS executives on this website to provide updates about American Philatelic Society. Membership information is available through this link.
Errata: We regret to report an error in the original December 2019 column definition of hyperspectral imaging. The error has been remedied for the online publication.