This may be a great place to put this suggestion. I read this on a site when doing some preservation research many years ago. If you would like to have a new stone made but the old stone is virtually unreadable take an aluminum foil cast of the stone. Take care in removing it from the stone. Once home with the foil impression you can make a cast of the stone using Plaster of Paris. It may take some practice as well s patience and careful work, but the end result may be well worth it. You then have a fair replica of the original work, at least as much as is left. If you want artwork replicated, simply take the cast to the monument company and they can see the original work. -----Original Message----- From: Mary [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MO-CEM] shaving cream on tombstones I am in agreement with all of you who recommend taking precaution... why take the chance of harming the old stones. It is so sad.. as I have seen, An old cemetery filled with stones that are unreadable, lost forever are the names and dates for those who lie beneath them. Sad for the genealogist who knows their ancestor lies somewhere in a particular cemetery and they have no idea or clue as to which stone is theirs. This is the reason this past year family members chipped in donations for one of our ancestors to have a flat stone placed at the foot of the old stone that has been deteriorating rapidly over the past several years. Mary C. CA. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brec Morton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [MO-CEM] shaving cream on tombstones > Why tempt fate when there are non-invasive ways of achieving the same > thing? > Years of observation of the effects of similar chemicals' effects on > stones > apparently have no sway? Just a shaving cream specific test will suffice? > When the faces of the stones are finally flat (as have been many I have > seen > in cemeteries) there is no going back. The information is lost forever. > Seems like for you the easy way works, regardless of the ultimate, even if > it is just remotely possible, effect it may have. Is that correct? Get in > and get out? I'm not trying to be nasty but, again, why add something > foreign to the stone when it is not necessary? All it takes is a "little" > extra effort. > Brec Morton > > Brock Way wrote: > > I hope in the meanwhile people and websites can > refrain from suggesting that these studies have > already been done, and that the results are in. > > Brock Way > > > ==== MO-CEMETERIES Mailing List ==== > NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, > political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal > messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be > grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen > Burnett [email protected] > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > ==== MO-CEMETERIES Mailing List ==== NOTICE: Posting of virus warnings, test messages, chain letters, political announcements, current events, items for sale, personal messages, flames, etc. (in other words - spam) is NOT ALLOWED and will be grounds for removal. Consideration for exceptions, contact Kathleen Burnett [email protected] ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx