Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:32:22 +1200 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
<008e01c7f008$87937120$0e3afea9@JALaptop> |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>It seems that different UV nm wavelengths work differently. Will a long
>wave UV 375 nm - 405nm work better, or a shortwave UV 254nm? I certainly
>liked John Wolf's approach that just to show the dealers the UV put them on
>notice that you were alert to fakes, or doctoring.
I have tried both LW and SW UV. It doesn't seem to make any
difference to Recent or fossil shells' fluorescence; it will be the
shell pigments fluorescing, not the minerals. I don't know whether it
will make any difference when used on glues, fillers etc used by the
fakers, but certainly at least some glues should fluoresce under both
SW & LW.
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut
‚ Opinions stated are mine, not of the University of Otago
"There is water at the bottom of the ocean" - Talking Heads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|