I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Take them out in bright sunshine tomorrow (yeah right) and compare
them carefully for any difference of emissivity or colour hue.

After that, if you can't detect a difference, I doubt any court will
either.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 24/01/2018 23:39, Graham. wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Take them out in bright sunshine tomorrow (yeah right) and compare
them carefully for any difference of emissivity or colour hue.

After that, if you can't detect a difference, I doubt any court will
either.


I`ll give that a try weather permitting :-)

What happened was the 2 copies and the original were all mistakenly
stamped as authenticated copies despite 1 being an original when they
should only have stamped the 2 copies.

On 24/01/2018 23:39, Graham. wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Take them out in bright sunshine tomorrow (yeah right) and compare
them carefully for any difference of emissivity or colour hue.

After that, if you can't detect a difference, I doubt any court will
either.


I`ll give that a try weather permitting :-)

What happened was the 2 copies and the original were all mistakenly
stamped as authenticated copies despite 1 being an original when they
should only have stamped the 2 copies.

Shrug IANAL.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In article ,
ss wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Does a magnifying glass show anything? An original ink line should be
pretty continuous. A printed one made up of dots, etc.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
ss writes:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

The original ball point will have indented the paper, and possibly
any sheets underneath it. This may be more visible from the rear.

Also, the colours on the copies are unlikely to exactly match the
original, although the copies may well match each other.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

The original ball point will have indented the paper, and possibly
any sheets underneath it. This may be more visible from the rear.

Also, the colours on the copies are unlikely to exactly match the
original, although the copies may well match each other.


This a macro image of the copy:
https://imgur.com/a/42EIn

This I think is the original:
https://imgur.com/ITvu29X

I am basing it on the `copy` is more solid colour and if correct as one
poster has stated the wet ink on the original shows the fibres of the paper.

Agree, disagree?

ss wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.


A drop of suitable solvent on part of the signature would soon sort them
out I reckon. ;-)

I doubt anyone will be able to offer any authoritative opinion without
having the documents in their hands though.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 25/01/2018 07:30, ss wrote:


The original ball point will have indented the paper, and possibly
any sheets underneath it.Â* This may be more visible from the rear.

Also, the colours on the copies are unlikely to exactly match the
original, although the copies may well match each other.


This a macro image of the copy:
https://imgur.com/a/42EIn

This I think is the original:
https://imgur.com/ITvu29X

I am basing it on the `copy` is more solid colour and if correct as one
poster has stated the wet ink on the original shows the fibres of the
paper.

Agree, disagree?

I'll pass.

If you had provided photos of all 3 I would have been more optimistic as
it'd then be a case of spotting the odd one out.

PS
IIRC which is the original matters for some documents but not for
others. (You can eg prove a copy if a will if the original can't be
found.) But if the mistake was made by a solicitor then they ought to
advise you w/o additional charge.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 24/01/18 23:14, ss wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

teh original will be indented

try taking a 'brass rubbing'



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

In article ,
ss writes:


The original ball point will have indented the paper, and possibly
any sheets underneath it. This may be more visible from the rear.

Also, the colours on the copies are unlikely to exactly match the
original, although the copies may well match each other.


This a macro image of the copy:
https://imgur.com/a/42EIn

The top one shows the artifacts of JPEG compression at the sharp colour contrast boundaries.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ss wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Does a magnifying glass show anything? An original ink line should be
pretty continuous. A printed one made up of dots, etc.

Yes, you should be able to see the toner dots. Look on the white paper a
short distance from the black lines of the signature and you'll almost
certainly see the occasional toner dot on the copy.

On 25/01/2018 08:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/01/18 23:14, ss wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate
the `wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

teh original will be indented

+1, If it really was a ball point

try taking a 'brass rubbing'



Not sure about that. What TNP might mean is to use a soft pencil
sharpened to provide a contact on the "cone" rather than the tip, if you
see what I mean, and rub this cone *very gently indeed* over the back
side of the signature location (in the way that an artist would shade in
an area).

Personally, I would start by looking at the back side illuminated from a
shallow angle. You might also dribble some laser printer toner on the
back, well away from the signature, then tilt the page to allow some to
flow down across the signature location. I think this is the technique
used to reveal writing on a notepad when the top sheet is missing.

On Wednesday, 24 January 2018 23:14:10 UTC, ss wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.

Have a look for yellow dots using visible blue lights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography

http://seeingyellow.com/

Includes links to websites which can help you decode the dots

Owain

On 24/01/2018 23:45, ss wrote:
On 24/01/2018 23:39, Graham. wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Take them out in bright sunshine tomorrow (yeah right) and compare
them carefully for any difference of emissivity or colour hue.

After that, if you can't detect a difference, I doubt any court will
either.


I`ll give that a try weather permitting :-)

What happened was the 2 copies and the original were all mistakenly
stamped as authenticated copies despite 1 being an original when they
should only have stamped the 2 copies.

One way that might well work is look at the reverse side of each piece
of paper lit from the side at an oblique angle. The one which was
physically signed with a biro should have a slight change in paper
height where the nib has squashed the paper fibres. Unless like in
classic spy movies they used a sheet of glass to lean on.

Failing that and only slightly destructive a solvent like meths or white
spirit will dissolve biro ink but not affect the laser copies. A sort of
variant on the old spirit duplicator printing method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_duplicator

My suggestion for a way to find the original is therefore wet a small
area of blank white paper with meths - let it soak in until there is no
surface wetness. Then press the solvent infused paper against each
signature. When you get the real one it will pick up some ink.

Try not to smudge it you need to put the paper down and lift it up again
without dragging sideways.

You may want to practice carefully on a sacrificial test piece first.

If you can guess correctly which are the copies by other means you can
confirm it by using this solvent test. Laser toner is thermoplastic.

Do not under any circumstances apply solvent directly to the biro
signature or it may be seriously degraded.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 25/01/2018 09:25, wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 January 2018 23:14:10 UTC, ss wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.

Have a look for yellow dots using visible blue lights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography

http://seeingyellow.com/

Includes links to websites which can help you decode the dots

Your are right. That is by far the easiest non-destructive test.

A 10x loupe easily sees the printer forensic yellow dots in good light.
They are all but invisible under a 3x loupe without using blue light.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 23:14 24 Jan 2018, ss wrote:

I have 3 `copies` of a document. 1 is original (ball point) and 2
are copies (laser printer) They all look similar, so does anyone
know of a way to differentiate the `wet signature` from the
copies. I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Next time use blue ink? Some people claim blue ink was invented to
allow a copy to show the difference between the original writing and
a signature.

There's also a myth that in the U.S. official documents had to be
signed in blue ink on account of this.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo...n-did-people-s
tart-using-blue-rather-than-black-ink/

At school in the old days, we used dark blue ink all the time but
nowadays the kids nearly always use black. What happened there?

The early photocopiers copiers were unresponsive to blue. I kept a sheet of
orhange lighting gel beside our office one since it made the blue look
black.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 25/01/2018 14:04, charles wrote:
Next time use blue ink? Some people claim blue ink was invented to
allow a copy to show the difference between the original writing and
a signature.

Many official documents in the UK insist on black ink and if you go over
the line of the signature box it is invalid, eg
Passport form
Last national survey.

On 25/01/2018 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
Includes links to websites which can help you decode the dots

Problem is the initial document was typed (less signature) on a word
document then printed. So all 3 documents have been printed on a laser
printer / copier so all would show dots I assume.

On 25/01/2018 13:24, pamela wrote:
On 23:14 24 Jan 2018, ss wrote:

I have 3 `copies` of a document. 1 is original (ball point) and 2
are copies (laser printer) They all look similar, so does anyone
know of a way to differentiate the `wet signature` from the
copies. I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Next time use blue ink? Some people claim blue ink was invented to
allow a copy to show the difference between the original writing and
a signature.

There's also a myth that in the U.S. official documents had to be
signed in blue ink on account of this.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo...n-did-people-s
tart-using-blue-rather-than-black-ink/

At school in the old days, we used dark blue ink all the time but
nowadays the kids nearly always use black. What happened there?


We used blue-black ink.
It was blue when you used it but turned black over time.

On 25/01/2018 09:00, Andrew Gabriel wrote:


The top one shows the artifacts of JPEG compression at the sharp colour contrast boundaries.


This may be from the camera taking the macro images and doesn't indicate
original or copy. Once you take a digital photo of all items the
differences may be less obvious. A straight scanned copy is not likely
to have JPEG compression artifacts.

I would look at the documents under a magnifying glass at places where
two lines cross such as in the "e". It may be possible to see on the
original that one line cuts through the other - on top of it

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 25/01/2018 16:03, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/01/2018 13:24, pamela wrote:
On 23:14Â* 24 Jan 2018, ss wrote:

I have 3 `copies` of a document. 1 is original (ball point) and 2
are copies (laser printer) They all look similar, so does anyone
know of a way to differentiate the `wet signature` from the
copies. I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.


Update:
They finally accepted the `original` despite the fact it was mistakenly
stamped as a `copy`
What had apparently happened was when first submitted and explanation
given it went to their `back office` and a second person read `copy` and
rejected it.
When submitted for a second time we gave a letter of explanation
attached and they were quite happy with that and passed the documents.

Thanks all for your input as it did help to reinforce what I thought was
the original document.

On Thursday, 25 January 2018 14:44:16 UTC, ss wrote:
Problem is the initial document was typed (less signature) on a word
document then printed. So all 3 documents have been printed on a laser
printer / copier so all would show dots I assume.

But the original will show one set of dots, and the two copies will show original + copying dots, assuming the original dots copied. Even if the original dots didn't get copied, you will have a pair with matching dots and a different document, which is the original.

Owain

On 25/01/2018 14:41, ss wrote:
On 25/01/2018 14:04, charles wrote:
Next time use blue ink?Â* Some people claim blue ink was invented to
allow a copy to show the difference between the original writing and
a signature.

Many official documents in the UK insist on black ink and if you go over
the line of the signature box it is invalid, eg
Passport form
Last national survey.

I always thought that was because early copiers and scanners couldn't
see blue ink. Now that all such scanners have been superseded, it would
make sense to allow blue.

I have to sign off other people's drawings and documents at work and the
standard is that the signature must be in black, but I have worked in
other places where the standard is blue - specifically so that the
original can be identified amongst black and white copies, pdfs, etc.

SteveW

On 25/01/2018 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
Have a look for yellow dots using visible blue lights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography

http://seeingyellow.com/

Includes links to websites which can help you decode the dots

Your are right. That is by far the easiest non-destructive test.

A 10x loupe easily sees the printer forensic yellow dots in good light.
They are all but invisible under a 3x loupe without using blue light.

I have had the documents passed now, however, regarding the yellow dots
I tested this with blue light and a 10x loupe and none had them. This
printed documents from 3 seperate sources.

Having said that
my copies are on an old laser B&W only
Other copy done at PO and most likely B&W only printer
And the other was from the sheriffs office possibly just B&W printer
also. I suspect the yellow dots only applies to colour laser printers.

On 25/01/2018 14:04, charles wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 23:14 24 Jan 2018, ss wrote:

I have 3 `copies` of a document. 1 is original (ball point) and 2
are copies (laser printer) They all look similar, so does anyone
know of a way to differentiate the `wet signature` from the
copies. I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Next time use blue ink? Some people claim blue ink was invented to
allow a copy to show the difference between the original writing and
a signature.

There's also a myth that in the U.S. official documents had to be
signed in blue ink on account of this.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo...n-did-people-s
tart-using-blue-rather-than-black-ink/

At school in the old days, we used dark blue ink all the time but
nowadays the kids nearly always use black. What happened there?

The early photocopiers copiers were unresponsive to blue. I kept a sheet of
orhange lighting gel beside our office one since it made the blue look
black.

The first office photocopier I used would, apparently, only copy carbon
- so black printing and typing was OK, but not ball point of any colour.
We had to write our reports with pencil. No idea the technology.

--
Max Demian

Surely the pen written one will have dents where it was signed.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"ss" wrote in message
...
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

On 25/01/2018 21:07, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely the pen written one will have dents where it was signed.
Brian

I would have expected that but the person that signed the document had
all but lost the power in his arms, eating and drinking were difficult
for him. So would probably not have leaned heavily enough.

In article ,
ss wrote:
On 25/01/2018 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
Includes links to websites which can help you decode the dots

Problem is the initial document was typed (less signature) on a word
document then printed. So all 3 documents have been printed on a laser
printer / copier so all would show dots I assume.

Just examine the signature?

--
*The best cure for sea sickness, is to sit under a tree.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/01/2018 13:24, pamela wrote:
On 23:14 24 Jan 2018, ss wrote:

I have 3 `copies` of a document. 1 is original (ball point) and 2
are copies (laser printer) They all look similar, so does anyone
know of a way to differentiate the `wet signature` from the
copies. I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Next time use blue ink? Some people claim blue ink was invented to
allow a copy to show the difference between the original writing and
a signature.

There's also a myth that in the U.S. official documents had to be
signed in blue ink on account of this.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo...n-did-people-s
tart-using-blue-rather-than-black-ink/

At school in the old days, we used dark blue ink all the time but
nowadays the kids nearly always use black. What happened there?


We used blue-black ink.
It was blue when you used it but turned black over time.

Quink washable blue ink. ball-points were forbidden. Circa 1968
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 24/01/2018 23:14, ss wrote:
I have 3 `copies` of a document.
1 is original (ball point) and 2 are copies (laser printer)
They all look similar, so does anyone know of a way to differentiate the
`wet signature` from the copies.
I have tried a UV light but doesnt show a difference.
Without causing any destruction as they are legal documents.

Rub some lens clening tissue over the original. Some of the
biro ink will come off.

On 26/01/2018 00:31, Graham. wrote:
On 25/01/2018 13:24, pamela wrote:

At school in the old days, we used dark blue ink all the time but
nowadays the kids nearly always use black. What happened there?

We used blue-black ink.
It was blue when you used it but turned black over time.

Quink washable blue ink. ball-points were forbidden. Circa 1968

Blue-black ink in inkwells with steel pens in primary school. Fountain
pens (which we had to provide) in secondary. No ball pens except for
rough. (Do kids still use rough books? Silly question. I don't suppose
they write at all. Do you know that Swedish schoolkids used to use
typewriters?)

--
Max Demian

On 25/01/2018 07:30, ss wrote:


The original ball point will have indented the paper, and possibly
any sheets underneath it. This may be more visible from the rear.

Also, the colours on the copies are unlikely to exactly match the
original, although the copies may well match each other.


This a macro image of the copy:
https://imgur.com/a/42EIn

This I think is the original:
https://imgur.com/ITvu29X

I am basing it on the `copy` is more solid colour and if correct as one
poster has stated the wet ink on the original shows the fibres of the
paper.

Agree, disagree?

I think your first photo is the copy because the tracks are all thicker,
and small white bits in the blob and the curl are not there. That
signature does not look like ballpoint that has a constant width of stroke.
--
Dave W