--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Cyndie"
> Yeah, I tried the hairdryer trick but the cord wouldn't reach far
> enough into the woods. *grin*
What? You don't have battery-powered Black-N-Decker leaf blower/yard
vac/hair dryer!? Hahahaha....
> I am annoyed at people who put bags around the outsides of boxes! It
> just makes the water problem worse. I now use Lock n- Lock
> containers
While I can certainly see the benefits of the secure water-tight seal,
I have to wonder about the very thin plastic hinges that keep the lid
on. Have you (or anyone else) ever seen one that was broken? Once just
one of the four hinges breaks, the water-tight properties are gone.
The price kinda turns me away, too...
> I have found boxes with the logbook double bagged, the stamp double
> bagged, then everything in a bigger outer bag, and then the outer
> container. I think this is overkill. While I am careful to close all
Definitely overkill. If fate has decided to get the box wet, it's
going to get wet. I'm particular about double-bagging logbooks though,
just in case. The most bags I've ever used: 3
> As for disappearing ink, I have a soaked logbook right here ...
> ... pages were recovered. stamp image ... SpudHund clear as ...
> could be ... WINK's ... Tarheel's signature stamps ...
> obliterated... except for the "tar" spot on Tarheel's image. I will
> find out what each of them used.
Real tar? Wow. Thinking about this scientifically, we have to consider
factors other than just the ink. For example, the kind of paper used:
was it a thick, absorbent card stock or craft paper meant to hold on
to ink, or was it a smooth-finish paper meant for high-speed copiers?
One other thing to consider is the length of time the paper was wet:
did the water just flow right through the box, leaving wet paper from
which the moisture would eventually evaporate... or did the water
flood the box and stay in there?
An interesting experiment...