10-20-2007, 07:07 PM
Hi guys,
I saw that fishound linked to my photo so I thought it might be useful for me to post the entire article here. I am unsure about linking to threads on other forums so I have removed those references.
For some time now, I've been monitoring and documenting the changes that have occurred in the Cuban Warranty Seal. Here's one thread comparing an authentic specimen with a counterfeit [xxx]. And here was my most recent look at the UV coat of arms[xxx] in relation to a change in the paper stock. This latest change is but the latest in a flurry of changes that started in the middle of 2006. Some of these involve the paper stock, the UV fluorescence of the stock, the presence of UV fluorescent security threads, changes in the ink color for the serial number prefix and serial number, and the color of the UV coat of arms.
And now, I believe we're seeing the first major printing related overhaul to the seal since it came out circa 2000. The microprinting is one feature that I scrutinize when attempting to determine the authenticity of a suspect box. There are many different approaches taken by counterfeiters when duplicating the seal and often, if the rest of the seal is well done, the microprinting is the only feature that is diagnostic. The static cigar information website Cigarnexus has a nice primer on the latest generation warranty seal.
One truth about printing plates is that they wear out. Specimens from 2000 and 2001 show micropinting that is crisp and clear. Over the years, however, the plates have suffered heavy wear. The plates used to apply the microprinting seem to have suffered the most. Recent specimens show areas where the microprinting is almost completely obliterated. At best, the quality is visibly degraded (under a 10X magnifier). Curiously, I have boxes of fakes where the microprinting is actually far better than on authentic specimens.
And that brings us to what appears to be a response to the severe decline in quality of the microprinting. In the following image, you'll see high resolution captures of portions of the microprinting on the 2000-later era seal and the new revision. The scan was taken at 1,200 dpi and rescaled for the web with only slight sharpening and level correction applied.
Immediately obvious is the new microprinting. The only change appears to be in the size of the font which is now about 3.5x that of the old print and of course it's much clearer. I've compared key landmarks across the entire seal and in all other respects, the two generations of seals are identical. The date code of the box is AGO for August, the latest month of production I've personally inspected. In July and months prior, the old microprinting was in force although there is likely some slop in the actual period of transition.
![[Image: WarrantySealComparo01.jpg]](http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h73/GinsengCigars/AssortedCubans/WarrantySealComparo01.jpg)
Wilkey
PS. In answer to Maduro PiPs' question in the other thread, I broke this news on October 17th at 8:35 PM.
I saw that fishound linked to my photo so I thought it might be useful for me to post the entire article here. I am unsure about linking to threads on other forums so I have removed those references.
For some time now, I've been monitoring and documenting the changes that have occurred in the Cuban Warranty Seal. Here's one thread comparing an authentic specimen with a counterfeit [xxx]. And here was my most recent look at the UV coat of arms[xxx] in relation to a change in the paper stock. This latest change is but the latest in a flurry of changes that started in the middle of 2006. Some of these involve the paper stock, the UV fluorescence of the stock, the presence of UV fluorescent security threads, changes in the ink color for the serial number prefix and serial number, and the color of the UV coat of arms.
And now, I believe we're seeing the first major printing related overhaul to the seal since it came out circa 2000. The microprinting is one feature that I scrutinize when attempting to determine the authenticity of a suspect box. There are many different approaches taken by counterfeiters when duplicating the seal and often, if the rest of the seal is well done, the microprinting is the only feature that is diagnostic. The static cigar information website Cigarnexus has a nice primer on the latest generation warranty seal.
One truth about printing plates is that they wear out. Specimens from 2000 and 2001 show micropinting that is crisp and clear. Over the years, however, the plates have suffered heavy wear. The plates used to apply the microprinting seem to have suffered the most. Recent specimens show areas where the microprinting is almost completely obliterated. At best, the quality is visibly degraded (under a 10X magnifier). Curiously, I have boxes of fakes where the microprinting is actually far better than on authentic specimens.
And that brings us to what appears to be a response to the severe decline in quality of the microprinting. In the following image, you'll see high resolution captures of portions of the microprinting on the 2000-later era seal and the new revision. The scan was taken at 1,200 dpi and rescaled for the web with only slight sharpening and level correction applied.
Immediately obvious is the new microprinting. The only change appears to be in the size of the font which is now about 3.5x that of the old print and of course it's much clearer. I've compared key landmarks across the entire seal and in all other respects, the two generations of seals are identical. The date code of the box is AGO for August, the latest month of production I've personally inspected. In July and months prior, the old microprinting was in force although there is likely some slop in the actual period of transition.
Wilkey
PS. In answer to Maduro PiPs' question in the other thread, I broke this news on October 17th at 8:35 PM.
