Canadian Philatelist Philatéliste canadien - The Royal Philatelic ...

Four points are important here: first, the fluorescent
chemicals, whiteners or optical brighteners used in
manufacturing the stamp papers did not penetrate
the self-adhesive gum. Not one envelope piece
displayed fluorescent staining on the inside of
the envelope side of the envelope piece behind
the self-adhesive gum. Furthermore, the light
coloured outline of the stamp originally observed,
and classified as High- and Low-stamp outlines no
longer appeared on the inside of the envelope pieces.
Second, where the chemicals did leach from a stamp
into its envelope piece, it was in a corona around
the edge of the stamp, around and beyond the gum.
The fluorescent chemicals, whiteners or optical
brighteners used in manufacturing the stamp papers
appeared to leach from the cut edge of the stamp that
was not sealed and protected by the self-adhesive
gum. Third, the fluorescent nimbus surrounding the
gum deposit on the envelope piece was distinctly
visible on both sides of the envelope piece. The
leaching was sufficient to completely penetrate the
envelope piece and not merely stain the paper’s
surface. These first three
findings both duplicate and
reinforce similar findings I
reported for the Flag and
Iceberg stamp from Booklet
215, but which I obtained
by the iodine “torture
test.” Fourth, where the E-8
fluorescent stamp showed
a decline of its fluorescent
brilliance on its gum side,
the fluorescent nimbus
displayed a reduction of its
brilliance and a reduction of the amount of whitening
and optical brightening chemicals penetrating into
the envelope piece in the same place.
In this case, the highly fluorescent stamps
displayed some variability of fluorescence
within the E-8 fluorescent range after soaking
from the pieces. This fluorescent variability was
matched consistently by an equal irregularity in
the assimilation of the whitening and brightening
chemicals into the fluorescent nimbus on the
envelope pieces. Considering only the stamps
from E-Dead and E-0 envelope pieces, the 17 E-8
fluorescent stamps transmitted a significant amount
of fluorescent chemicals into their envelope pieces.
The 13 E-5 fluorescent stamps imparted some
fluorescent chemicals into the envelopes, but the
80 E-4 fluorescent stamps did not appear to release
fluorescent chemicals into the envelope pieces.
These first three findings both
duplicate and reinforce similar
findings I reported for the Flag
and Iceberg stamp from Booklet
215, but which I obtained by
the iodine “torture test.”
Other researchers have, ipso-facto, dismissed
variability in stamp fluorescences as the stamps
having been contaminated by fluorescent envelope
pieces, or other external pollutants. But there are
five observable facts presenting evidence and
proof contradicting that ipsi-dixit or the “say
so” assumption. First, the E-8 fluorescent stamps
displayed a distinctive variation in intensity of
fluorescence across the entire area of the stamps,
marble like, but consistently within the limits of
the E-8 fluorescent range of variability. Second,
this fluorescence variability could not have been
produced by fluorescent contamination from the
lesser fluorescent envelope pieces for two reasons:
because the envelope pieces were all of significantly
lower fluorescent levels than their stamps, and
because the self-adhesive gum has been proven to
act as a protective barrier preventing migrations
of chemical contaminants. Third, the E-5 and E-8
fluorescent stamps imparted fluorescent chemicals,
whiteners and optical brighteners, from the stamps
into the less fluorescent envelope pieces, but not
the E-4 fluorescent stamps.
Fourth, it is implausible
that the uniformity of E-
8 fluorescence and its
variability within the
narrow E-8 range could
have been produced
by the changeability of
contaminated soaking
water during the soaking
sessions for two significant
reasons: the water used
to soak each group of
stamps was renewed for each soaking lot. Also,
because each cluster of stamps produced a different
quantity of the E-4, E-5 and E-8 fluorescences
of stamps and this alone would have produced
singularly distinct concentrations of fluorescent
chemical contamination in each of the soaking
waters that would result in greater variability of
the fluorescence of contaminated stamps. And fifth,
each batch of soaked stamps produced all the three
levels of fluorescent stamps: E-4, E-5 and E-8. It
is unbelievable that some stamps would remain
uncontaminated (E-4), a small number of stamps
would become only slightly contaminated (E-5) and
the remainder would be severely contaminated (E-
8) selectively by the same soaking water.
The inclusion of 138 additional stamps into my
research cache did not significantly change the ratio
of stamps in each of the E-4, E-5 and E-8 stamp
276 • the CP / le PC • SO06