Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Shaving Cream & Tombstones - DON'T! (Long)

148 views
Skip to first unread message

David Chapin

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to

I was reading an editorial in "Heritage Quest" by Leland K.
Meitzler about why he continues to use shaving cream to
enhance his photos of tombstones. Many people in this group
know that I am an activist AGAINST this practice, because the
stearic acid in the shaving cream will dissolve MgCO3/CaCO3
that makes up typical marble stones. Since most people are not
experts in the different gravestone types, as a geologist by
training I suggested people stay away from shaving cream on
tombstones altogether. If it's bad for a car finish, it's bad
for a tombstone. I suggested using powdered inert substances,
instead, such as talc, graphite, or ground limestone.

Mr. Meitzler was clearly referring to my Internet articles in
his editorial. He wrote:
"The gentleman has a point, in that shaving cream contains
stearic acid, putting the shaving cream in the pH 5 range.
This makes it a rather acid substance. It was stated that it
is even more acid than acid rain! I'm sorry, but acid rain has
been a problem since the inception of the industrial
revolution. It has gone on day after day, with little let-up.
The use of shaving cream, wiped across the face of a headstone,
and then washed off doesn't even seem to be in the same
league....For my own part, I'll continue to use shaving cream,
because it works better than any other medium for allowing us
to read headstones that are otherwise illegible. I use small
amounts of it....[after photographing the stone,] I then wash
the shaving cream from the stone..."

First of all, let me comment on the above. Then let me add
some new research on the matter.

Comments:
1) I'm glad he called me a "gentleman". Very few people say that
about me ;-)
2) The time of reaction is very brief, as anyone who has mixed
baking soda with vinegar will attest to. The damage commences within
seconds of initial contact. Even acid rain works the same way. It
is not the length of time that matters so much as it is the fact
that you add the acid to the stone in the first place.
3) Acid rain comes and goes. In one rainstorm, the drops could be
acidic. In the next they could be alkaline. I know here in North
Texas, the rains are almost always alkaline. I know this because
everytime it rains, I have to add acid to my pool to balance it.
Recently, great strides have been made reducing air polution, which
is the leading cause of acid rain. Why would Mr. Meitzler want to
exacerbate a known problem that may have been arrested?
4) Shaving cream may be an easier medium to work with, but should
laziness be the reason we damage gravestones for future generations?

Now for some new research into this problem...

My son took on this idea for his Science Fair project this year.
And he came to some interesting conclusions. He took sample tiles
of fresh polished rock that he knew was used for gravestones in
our area. Then he subjected them to various acid tests. He also
went to different cemeteries and recorded the amount of erosion
based on the assumption that the stone was the same age as the
date the person died.

For the igneous crystalline rocks, such as granite or black
granite (actually called diabase), acid caused no visible damage.
Some of the sandstone headstones showed damage and some not. This
was related to the composition of the intergrain cement that holds
the sand together. Some cement was made of CaCO3 and showed the
most chemical weathering.

Now for the marble stones, which seem to make up the majority of
the gravestones in our area.... Obviously, there were significant
chemical weathering effects that were visible. Even new stones
were not immune. At the very least, the polish was completely
removed from the stone, indicating at least 1 mm of surface
disintigration had occurred.

He soaked the fresh tiles in an acid bath of pH 3 for five
minutes. He observed a minimum of 3 mm of surface
disintigration, sometimes more. This represented the
equivalent of about 50-100 years of chemical weathering.
The point was that it took only 5 minutes to reproduce
years of weathering!

He also tried using shaving cream (Gillette Foamy). It is
admittedly less acidic then his experimental acid bath.
In five minutes, it had completely removed the polish
from the marble. This indicates a minimum of about 1 mm
of surface disintigration. Since old gravestone carvings
are typically only 3-5 mm deep, shaving cream causes
significant damage to marble stones. Even if you only
leave it on the stone for the length of time necessary
to take a photograph, the damage is done!

One millimeter of damage may be hard to notice, but it is real
damage nonetheless. Why damage something needlessly?
Will our future generations thank us because, in our haste and
convenience, we have actively contributed towards a gravestone
that will become illegible sooner? This was something that was
meant for them to read, as well.

The bottom line is this: DON'T USE SHAVING CREAM ON TOMBSTONES!

*** David Chapin | dch...@computek.net ***
*** Plano, Texas | dch...@er.arco.com ***
*** For the latest in Jewish genealogy, see Web page: ***
*** http://dvjcc.ncc.com/dvjcc/dvjcc.genealogy.html ***


W. John Williams

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to

Are there better substitutes? I for one have not yet tried
enhancing stones using any method but would gladly like to hear (as
I'm sure others would) of a "safe" substitute.

John

john.w...@airservices.gov.au

D.J. Murie Information Technology Services ext 4137

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to

David Chapin (dch...@computek.net) wrote:

: I was reading an editorial in "Heritage Quest" by Leland K.


: Meitzler about why he continues to use shaving cream to
: enhance his photos of tombstones. Many people in this group
: know that I am an activist AGAINST this practice, because the
: stearic acid in the shaving cream will dissolve MgCO3/CaCO3
: that makes up typical marble stones. Since most people are not
: experts in the different gravestone types, as a geologist by
: training I suggested people stay away from shaving cream on
: tombstones altogether. If it's bad for a car finish, it's bad
: for a tombstone. I suggested using powdered inert substances,
: instead, such as talc, graphite, or ground limestone.

Very interesting post. Gee, if it does this much damage to stones what
is it doing to my face each morning? ;)


--
David J B Murie Information Technology Services, University of Dundee
User Support Manager Park Place, DUNDEE, DD1 4HN, Scotland
Chairman, BCS Tayside Branch Tel: +44 1382 344137/3
D.J.B...@dundee.ac.uk Fax: +44 1382 345505


J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to

dch...@computek.net (David Chapin) wrote:

>I was reading an editorial in "Heritage Quest" by Leland K.
>Meitzler about why he continues to use shaving cream to
>enhance his photos of tombstones. Many people in this group
>know that I am an activist AGAINST this practice, because the
>stearic acid in the shaving cream will dissolve MgCO3/CaCO3
>that makes up typical marble stones.

I bow to your expertise and accept your proof but - since lettering is
normally "carved?" into marble vice raised, wouldn't application of
shaving cream, to lettering only, just make the inscription more
legible with time. And how long might it take shaving cream residue to
eat through a 4" marble block?

DISCLAIMER: I have never tried a foreign substance on a headstone.

Hugh


sull...@netam.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

Wendell Cochran

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

In article <4d9bt0$e...@monty.rand.org>,

W. John Williams <WILLI...@a1cbr.airservices.gov.au> wrote:
>
> Are there better substitutes? I for one have not yet tried
> enhancing stones using any method but would gladly like to hear
> (as I'm sure others would) of a "safe" substitute.

Try strong sidelighting with a halogen lamp, at night.

Bear in mind that the Gutenberg experience leads us to 'expect'
lighting from the upper left. However, other directions may work
better -- depending on the weathering & perhaps also the vagaries of
the typeface, angle of cutting, mineral color, etc.

Wendell Cochran
West Seattle
atr...@eskimo.com (Wendell Cochran)

Tim Pierce

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

In article <4d8n02$3...@monty.rand.org>,

J. Hugh Sullivan <sull...@netam.net> wrote:

> I bow to your expertise and accept your proof but - since lettering
> is normally "carved?" into marble vice raised, wouldn't application
> of shaving cream, to lettering only, just make the inscription more
> legible with time.

My understanding of the shaving-cream method (which I have never
tried) is that it involves spraying foam across the entire surface
of the stone, and then wiping it away so that foam remains only in
the recessed letters. In other words, the shaving cream is *not*
applied "to lettering only," but to the entire surface.
Additionally, the effect of the foam on existing chips or pits in
the letters will only aggravate those problems. I don't think
it's hard to imagine a faded, chipped `R' taking on the appearance
of a faded, chipped `B' before long.

> And how long might it take shaving cream residue to eat through a 4"
> marble block?

That seems to be beside the point. If the letters on a headstone are,
let's say, 3mm deep, and an application of shaving cream can be
demonstrated to remove 1mm over only a few minutes, it shouldn't take
very long at all for the letters to become quite illegible. For
genealogical purposes, even if the marble block is still 3.5" thick,
it's quite useless if the names have been completely eradicated.

--
By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address, the
sender agrees to pay a $100 flat fee to the recipient for proofreading
services.
Tim Pierce <twpi...@midway.uchicago.edu>

Beverly C. Wilson

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

> Are there better substitutes? I for one have not yet tried
> enhancing stones using any method but would gladly like to hear
> (as I'm sure others would) of a "safe" substitute.

Yes!

A large piece of sidewalk chalk! <Remember hopscotch?>

Rubbed longwise; it fills in, cleans up, makes the lettering legible
and washes off.

Does no harm to a stone, according to cemetery keepers.
"Beverly C. Wilson" <bwi...@dialin.ind.net>

Lesley Robertson

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

"W. John Williams" <WILLI...@a1cbr.airservices.gov.au> wrote:
>
> Are there better substitutes? I for one have not yet tried
> enhancing stones using any method but would gladly like to hear (as
> I'm sure others would) of a "safe" substitute.
>
> john.w...@airservices.gov.au


I've had good results (even with badly eroded stones) by simply
spraying them with distilled water and then shining a light at an
angle to throw any shadows into relief. I'm very much against using
anything that can chemically react with the stones, or anything that
needs brushing off. Many stones in the older scottish graveyards are
crumbling already, and it seems very unfair to other researchers,
family and our descendants to make the stones less readable than they
already are! Books containing transcripts of scottish pre 1855 stone
can be bought from the Scottish Genealogy Society. I don't know about
others.

Lesley RObertson
Lesley Robertson <l.a.ro...@stm.tudelft.nl>

Pat Patterson

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

>
> Are there better substitutes? I for one have not yet tried
> enhancing stones using any method but would gladly like to hear
> (as I'm sure others would) of a "safe" substitute.

When in Scotland last spring, it was recommended that I wipe the grave
stone message area with the side of a piece of chock which left the
letters quite visible and darker than the surface. Only used the
system twice and it worked very well and filmed beautifully. It can
also be wiped off or left for the rain to wipe off naturally. Most
stones in England/Scotland are sandstone and are well into the state
of disintigration within 100 years and in 150 years are almost totally
illegible. I also saw some monuments made of cement which were many
hundreds of years old and as easy to read as the day they were carved.

wo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Pat Patterson)

Wendell Cochran

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

In article <4d8n02$3...@monty.rand.org>,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull...@netam.net> wrote:
>
>dch...@computek.net (David Chapin) wrote:
>
>>stearic acid in the shaving cream will dissolve MgCO3/CaCO3
>>that makes up typical marble stones.
>
>I bow to your expertise and accept your proof but - since lettering is
>normally "carved?" into marble vice raised, wouldn't application of
>shaving cream, to lettering only, just make the inscription more
>legible with time.

Erosion by shaving cream will not be uniform, if only because marble
(essentially fine-grained limestone) will not erode evenly. Thus the
legibility will suffer.

Proof? Look at gravestones eroded by natural weathering. The older the
stone (same material, & same conditions), the harder to read.

Wendell Cochran
(another geologist)

Drew Lawson

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to

In article <4d8n02$3...@monty.rand.org>

sull...@netam.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:

>I bow to your expertise and accept your proof but - since lettering is
>normally "carved?" into marble vice raised, wouldn't application of
>shaving cream, to lettering only, just make the inscription more

>legible with time. And how long might it take shaving cream residue to


>eat through a 4" marble block?


If the shaving cream (or other substance) *does* weaken the stone,
then it will weaken the stone in the spaces between/within the
letters. The worst case here would be that the text is slowly
transformed into a trough.

Surely this isn't too much of a problem for a newer stone (since it is
a long term damage), but it isn't the new ones that you want to
"enhance," is it?


--
Drew Lawson | sigfile? sigfile?!!!
dla...@netcom.com | We don't need no stinkin sigfiles!

ron...@wimsey.com

unread,
Jan 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/26/96
to

It is also worth lokking up books by "Cansick" in the LDS
catalogue. He catalogued MIs from a number of London churchyards where
the stones no longer exist.

Also it is worth contacting local FHS, many of whom publ;ish lists of MIs.

Most importantly if you do transcribe any inscriptions send a copy to
the local FHS so they can consider including it in future
publications. In fact I make it a rule that if I find one inscription
I need I copy 10 more for the local FHS (admittedly I choose the
legible ones!!)


Ron Taylor (ron...@wimsey.com)
Genealogy Home Page http://www.starbase21.com/rontaylor
7512 Murray Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4B1 Canada
(604)826-1982 (H) (604)294-7734 (W) (604) 294-7710 FAX

0 new messages