Home | Subscribe | Contact Us | Advertise Home | Subscribe | Contact Us | Advertise
Distributors choose from a menu of document security features
By Andy Brown
Security features perform their tasks regardless of the document type. As long as distributors know a document’s intended use, its risks and the end user’s desired security level, they can recommend the best combination of features to protect any document—even a recipe—from counterfeit and forgery.
This visual guide illustrates some of the most common security features available. They include overt features such as a warning band and covert features such as ink that glows under an ultraviolet light. Document security experts agree that no one feature is universally effective. Instead, layers of security features work best.
Andy Brown is managing editor of Print Solutions magazine. Email comments to abrown@PSDA.org.
Check 21: Void Pantographs Called Into Question
Void pantographs combat one of the most basic counterfeiting techniques—copying. When someone tries to duplicate a secure document on a scanner or color copier, the word VOID appears in bold letters on the new document. It’s supposed to, anyway. Some check manufacturers and distributors are losing faith in the void pantograph’s effectiveness.
"Our manufacturers
are issuing disclaimers
that the void pantograph
is not guaranteed to
work on all color copiers.
It isn't as reliable as
it used to be."
|
“I think it’s a combination of two things: Check 21 compliance standards and the ever-changing technology in color copiers and scanners,” says Charlie Chomas, president of Dynatron Inc., Lake Worth, Fla. “Is the void pantograph really a viable security feature? In my opinion, it has been weakened.”
After several attempts by people to use its checks fraudulently, a long-time client of Chomas’ decided to purchase laser-generated checks that they would encode themselves. “The CFO of the company wanted to secure the documents as much as possible, so he authorized me to load their check stock with as many security features as I could,” says Chomas. Among other things, he upgraded the stock to include invisible fibers and bleach- and solvent-resistant paper. He also incorporated a custom backer with consecutive control numbers, and added microprinting, a warning band and a void pantograph.
“We made two attempts to get an effective void pantograph, but neither worked,” he says. “Our manufacturers are issuing disclaimers that the void pantograph is not guaranteed to work on all color copiers. It isn’t as reliable as it used to be.”
Because Check 21 allows banks to substitute printed checks with a scanned image, they require that void pantographs don’t appear when they process the documents. Reconciling the banks’ criteria with the need to create a useful security feature has proven difficult. Chomas continues to work with his manufacturers to determine if some color combinations work better than others and whether they can tweak the density of the screens and rotate the angle of the VOID. If for no other reason, Chomas’ client demands it. “Their CFO said ‘If your industry is selling this feature, then you’ve got to deliver. So go find a solution,’” says Chomas. “On the third order, we added thermochromatic ink. I figure if the void pantograph doesn’t work, this might be a viable tool.”
Chomas hasn’t given up on the pantograph entirely. Further testing on his client’s check revealed positive results. “I went to Office Depot and Staples. Both had various models of Xerox DocuColors. I tested the checks on three different models,” he says. Although the pantograph wasn’t as clear as he wanted, it was visible. His customer approved the feature and placed a reorder for the checks. From his experience, Chomas learned not to put faith in any one security feature. “Void pantographs aren’t foolproof. They’re no better and no worse than any of the other features,” he says.
—Andy Brown