Jink. 191.'. 



kxo\vlp:i)ge. 



211 



Figure 231. 



Early Waterm.-irk in 



Paper. 



Stated that, "' Upon a critical examination of the four 

 signatures it will be found that they correspond 

 almost exactly — a correspondence which could not 

 possibly happen in the case 

 of a person upwards of 

 eighty years of age." 



With regard to this and 

 similar cases it may be 

 remarked that it is not always 

 possible to demonstrate so 

 thoroughly the tracing of 

 a signature, and where there 

 is only one signature involved 

 and the model cannot be 

 found proof must, at best, 

 lack completeness. 



Coming now to the 

 question of the nature of the paper of a suspicious 

 document, there are numerous starting places for 

 an examination. Obviously, the watermark will be 

 carefully examined and compared with that in 

 the paper in other documents in the case. An 

 anachronism of the watermark has before now 

 proved that certain writings could not possilily be 

 as old as they were claimed to be. 



For instance, forged historical autographs ha\e 

 been detected through having been written upon 

 paper with a watermark of a later period than the 

 alleged date of the writing. The early devices used 

 as watermarks were very characteristic, as may be 

 seen in the accompanying interesting examples, which 

 Ur. Scott has kindly allowed me to reproduce from 

 his book " Historical Documents " (see Figures 

 231 to 2.54.) 



Evidence of this nature was given at a trial some 

 vears ago and it was proved that a letter, alleged to 

 have been sent from Venice, 

 had been written upon paper 

 made in England at a later 

 ilate. 



The evidence of the water- 

 mark, however, is not always 

 conclusive as to the date of 

 the jjaper, since manufacturers 

 ma\' intentionally use moulds 

 of a wrong date. Thus, in 

 a trial which took place in 

 1(S34, in Edinburgh, evidence 

 was given by the paper 

 manufacturers that they were 

 post-dating their paper, and 

 were using moulds with w ater- 

 marks of 1828 pattern to 

 suppl\- a special order. It is 

 only a clumsy forger who 

 will lose sight of the silent 

 testimony of a watermark, but he cannot so easilj' 

 protect himself against variations in the structure 

 and composition of the paper itself. 



In the old type of paper made from rags little 



FiGCKE 2i3. 



Early Watermark in 

 I'aper. 



Figure 232. 



Early Watermark in 



Paper. 



difference can be observed in the structure of 

 diflerent samples, each showing more or less disinte- 

 grated tibres of cottcHi or linen, such as are seen in 

 Figure 235, which repre- 

 sents the microscopical 

 appearance of a fragment 

 of eighteenth - centu r\ 

 writing-paper. 



At the present day paper 

 is made from wood pulp, 

 and all kinds of vegetable 

 fibres, and it is only the 

 more expensive (]ualities 

 which are still made exclu- 

 sively from rags. 



A s])ecimen of a so-called 

 Manilla writing-paper gave 

 the microscopical appearance shown in Figure 236. 

 For these two drawings I ha\c to thank nn 

 friend, Mr. K. M. Pridt'aux. It is ob\ious that 

 the producticii of a [)icce of writing dated, say. 

 thirty years ago, would probably not be genuine if 

 written on paper with the structure of the second 

 specimen. 



But apart from the structure, there are pronoimced 

 differences in the amounts of ash and in tin- nature 

 and quantities of the numeral constituents m tiic ash 

 of modern samples of paper. 



For instance, Levi [Zelt. aiiiicic. Clicjii.. 1 ')!(). 

 XXIII, 1258) has devised a sensitive method of 

 estimating the amount of sul[)hur in paper by means 

 of the yellow colour produced on adding alkaline 

 leail acetate to the fused ash. So sensitive is this 

 test that a perceptible yellow coloration was given 

 by an ash containing as little as 00000303 gramme 

 of sulphur. 



I'urther valuable tests of tlu 

 document may be based upo 

 of the sizing. 



It has not infrequentlx 

 happened that a slight 

 erasure has changed the 

 whole sense oi a letter. 



.An instance of this canic 

 within the writer's experi- 

 ence, where a letter contain- 

 ing the words "our house" 

 was put forward as evidence 

 as to the ownership of the 

 property. 



When this was e.xarnined 

 under the microscope b\' 

 transmitted light it showed 

 unmistakeable signs of 

 erasure in front of the 

 " our," the sizing having been removed and the 

 fibres scratched up apparently with the point of 

 a knife. The paper was also more transjjarent 

 at the place where the erasure had taken place. 



genuineness of a 

 an examination 



I'^arly Watermark in 

 Paper. 



