• Hi Guest - Sign up now for Secret Santa 2024!
    Click here to sign up!
  • Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Cuban Warranty Seals

Ginseng said:
hewholooks said:
Wilkey, my lamp emits at wavelength 254nm - well into the short wave range. Like I said, however, it's a cheap lamp and it might well be firing off some long wave stuff as well.

Like this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/L85-Short-Wave-UV-Lamp...1QQcmdZViewItem

I do know that some "invisible" markers on stamps and banknotes are designed to only be detectable under short wave as this kind of light is not as likely to be encountered from lamps bought in the usual light bulb stores. The Cuban seals apparently are not if folks are getting them to glow under the more common long wave lights.

Whatever the nature of the markers, I'm just glad that the seals are made with the phosphorescent markers so that we have another tool to help find the forgeries.
Click to expand...

Your point about the usage of these lamps in philately is well taken. In fact, I got my lamp from CP member Centurycigar, who is a dealer of stamps (and coins, I think.) He tried both lamps he had in stock, long and short wave and reported that it was the long wave, and the long wave only that made the seal fluoresce.

Your comments have caused me to go back and reexamine my understanding about this subject. As a start, I pulled up information on Ciba Uvitex-OB, a workhorse brightener that I have used and that is a good example. This compound absorbs strongly between 335nm and 405nm with 20% relative intensity down as far as 305nm. It emits strongly between 405nm and 485nm. 245nm is way down into the deep UV part of the spectrum and I doubt that something like a Uvitex OB would respond visibly to that wavelength. However, this is not an ink grade brightener.

The fact that the image did not fluoresce under 395nm suggests that it was not responsive to deep blue. However, near-UV is just a bit further down at 360-365nm. Shortwave is down below 275nm so there is a big gap where things seem to light up. Without knowing the actual wavelength output by my lamp, I can't feel really confident that I know for sure what is going on.

Wilkey
Click to expand...

Well I got to say, I appreciate all the information! For a simple guy like myself, I'm confused as hell. Maybe I'll just smoke NCs. :laugh:
 
Ginseng said:
hewholooks said:
Wilkey, my lamp emits at wavelength 254nm - well into the short wave range. Like I said, however, it's a cheap lamp and it might well be firing off some long wave stuff as well.

Like this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/L85-Short-Wave-UV-Lamp...1QQcmdZViewItem

I do know that some "invisible" markers on stamps and banknotes are designed to only be detectable under short wave as this kind of light is not as likely to be encountered from lamps bought in the usual light bulb stores. The Cuban seals apparently are not if folks are getting them to glow under the more common long wave lights.

Whatever the nature of the markers, I'm just glad that the seals are made with the phosphorescent markers so that we have another tool to help find the forgeries.
Click to expand...

Your point about the usage of these lamps in philately is well taken. In fact, I got my lamp from CP member Centurycigar, who is a dealer of stamps (and coins, I think.) He tried both lamps he had in stock, long and short wave and reported that it was the long wave, and the long wave only that made the seal fluoresce.

Your comments have caused me to go back and reexamine my understanding about this subject. As a start, I pulled up information on Ciba Uvitex-OB, a workhorse brightener that I have used and that is a good example. This compound absorbs strongly between 335nm and 405nm with 20% relative intensity down as far as 305nm. It emits strongly between 405nm and 485nm. 245nm is way down into the deep UV part of the spectrum and I doubt that something like a Uvitex OB would respond visibly to that wavelength. However, this is not an ink grade brightener.

The fact that the image did not fluoresce under 395nm suggests that it was not responsive to deep blue. However, near-UV is just a bit further down at 360-365nm. Shortwave is down below 275nm so there is a big gap where things seem to light up. Without knowing the actual wavelength output by my lamp, I can't feel really confident that I know for sure what is going on.

Wilkey
Click to expand...

You know, it could always be possible that the seller of my lamp has made erroneous claims about it's wavelength and it is in fact NOT a short wave lamp. That does not explain why the minerals that fluoresce with short wave lamps react to this lamp.

I am completely confused. Wish we had a way to find out what ink they use in the Cuban seals.
 
hewholooks said:
Ginseng said:
hewholooks said:
Wilkey, my lamp emits at wavelength 254nm - well into the short wave range. Like I said, however, it's a cheap lamp and it might well be firing off some long wave stuff as well.

Like this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/L85-Short-Wave-UV-Lamp...1QQcmdZViewItem

I do know that some "invisible" markers on stamps and banknotes are designed to only be detectable under short wave as this kind of light is not as likely to be encountered from lamps bought in the usual light bulb stores. The Cuban seals apparently are not if folks are getting them to glow under the more common long wave lights.

Whatever the nature of the markers, I'm just glad that the seals are made with the phosphorescent markers so that we have another tool to help find the forgeries.
Click to expand...

Your point about the usage of these lamps in philately is well taken. In fact, I got my lamp from CP member Centurycigar, who is a dealer of stamps (and coins, I think.) He tried both lamps he had in stock, long and short wave and reported that it was the long wave, and the long wave only that made the seal fluoresce.

Your comments have caused me to go back and reexamine my understanding about this subject. As a start, I pulled up information on Ciba Uvitex-OB, a workhorse brightener that I have used and that is a good example. This compound absorbs strongly between 335nm and 405nm with 20% relative intensity down as far as 305nm. It emits strongly between 405nm and 485nm. 245nm is way down into the deep UV part of the spectrum and I doubt that something like a Uvitex OB would respond visibly to that wavelength. However, this is not an ink grade brightener.

The fact that the image did not fluoresce under 395nm suggests that it was not responsive to deep blue. However, near-UV is just a bit further down at 360-365nm. Shortwave is down below 275nm so there is a big gap where things seem to light up. Without knowing the actual wavelength output by my lamp, I can't feel really confident that I know for sure what is going on.

Wilkey
Click to expand...

You know, it could always be possible that the seller of my lamp has made erroneous claims about it's wavelength and it is in fact NOT a short wave lamp. That does not explain why the minerals that fluoresce with short wave lamps react to this lamp.

I am completely confused. Wish we had a way to find out what ink they use in the Cuban seals.
Click to expand...

I am as confused as the rest of you. Unfortunately, my engineering curiosity just won't let me drop it. :D I've got to do a bit more reading. Somehow I have the feeling that we can probably crack this nut.

Wilkey
 
Color looks wrong. Both the tax stamp and the Habanos label are not positioned properly. And then of course, there's the glass top.
 
Roger that,

Just reading all you guys post I was pretty certain they were not real.
Thankfully for me they were a gift. And that person is supposedly a cigar smoker. Shame on him
 
Hey, good news for me. Bought a cheap UV light on ebay and it works. Guys, thanks again for all your help!
 
the 15" Globe tubes are $9.99 at Walmart. i bought one a while back. it shows the seal fluorece well. what does trouble me, is that i noticed yellow highlighter flouresces when exposed to the light, the same as the Cuban warranty seal, so wouldnt this be relatively easy to counterfit? :whistling:

Cohiba.jpg
 
Sunward said:
the 15" Globe tubes are $9.99 at Walmart. i bought one a while back. it shows the seal fluorece well. what does trouble me, is that i noticed yellow highlighter flouresces when exposed to the light, the same as the Cuban warranty seal, so wouldnt this be relatively easy to counterfit? :whistling:

Cohiba.jpg
Click to expand...

Can it be counterfeited? Sure, like everything else. Isn’t it even possible that a bunch of real labels could be stolen and used? My concern was I had an old black light and the seal did not appear on any of the boxes. Everything else was fine. So I was a little relived when I tried with a different light. Still doesn’t guarantee anything.
 
Big Stick -

Looking at the other photos of that box, it may be the fakest I've ever seen. :)

If you ever decide you'd like to trade it for a cigar or two, let me know.
 
Very interest in that trade next week. as I would like to compare it to the real deal Im hoping from a reputable site
 
Ginseng said:
Here are photos of two 2006 boxes. One has the "old" dark numerals and the other has the "new" bright numerals. Both boxes come from trustworthy sources from the same world region, Asia-Pacific.

SealSerialNumberInkNew01.jpg


SealSerialNumberInkOld01.jpg


Wilkey
Click to expand...

Hi Wilkey,

The "old" style seal seems to have flouescing fibres imbedded in the paper similar to those in currency, however the "newer" one does not. Is that just an angle of the light thing or something more, or less, significant?

Thanks.
 
Good catch, Adam. In fact, I have relatively few specimens of the "new" seal. And they do not have the fluorescing fibers. The fibers have been in use for some time now. I would say it is a significant detail.

Wilkey
 
Ginseng said:
Good catch, Adam. In fact, I have relatively few specimens of the "new" seal. And they do not have the fluorescing fibers. The fibers have been in use for some time now. I would say it is a significant detail.

Wilkey
Click to expand...


That seems peculiar. It doesn't make much sense for them to reduce the security features, unless it was proving to be too easily replicated or ineffective in some other manner. Of course maybe they just ran out of the right kind of paper for one series.

Have you tried variable light sources to see if the fibres flouresce under a different frequency? Now that I think about it that doesn't make much sense either. Requiring vendors or whoever checks the seals to have multiple light sources might be asking a bit much.

Curious.
 
Adam,

It's entirely possible that their paper stock changes. I have noticed some changes aside from the fibers.

As to the different wavelengths, that is still a bit of a messy situation. Since I do not have access to a range of wavelengths, and I have no idea of the spectral spread of the sources I do have, it's impossible for me to say with any certainty.

I suppose this is a precaution that Havana have decided on and it is up to the vendor or distributor to make the necessary resources available.

On top of all this, the actual fluorescing agent in the hidden seal may change as well although I couldn't imagine why they'd do this aside from presenting a moving target for counterfeiters.

Curiosity is good.

Wilkey
 
You say you have a few samples of the "new" seals. Are the numbers close to each other? Assuming they are printed sequentially that might say something about the stock in use. Possibly just a few print runs done on a different paper or something to that effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top