Some Odd Questions About UV Tattoos

[Galen]

Hi all,

At the risk of being one of those annoying people who only come here seeking information and have little to offer in the way of anything intelligent to say about tattoos, I joined this forum in order to ask a few odd questions about UV tattoos. I've edited my original post in hopes of keeping the focus on these questions:

Does anyone know if UV tattooing was something people did or knew about back in the mid-80s?

Is it possible for a UV tattoo to remain visible under UV light thirty years after being applied? Or ... inked? I don't know the best verb, sorry!

Are there other ways besides using a tattoo machine that someone could have done a UV tattoo? And if so, would that result in a weird, blobby looking tattoo?

Is there any explanation for why a UV tattoo would glow under one type of black-light, and not another?

Responses much appreciated, thanks!

Edited November 18, 2016 by Galen

[Dan]

hi and welcome,

I am confused,are you saying that someone put this uv tattoo on you without you knowing it ? 

and unless you walk around everyday with a " cheapo black-light you can buy at any Staples " shining on your neck,who cares anyway !?!?!??!?

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Dan

[Galen]

 

Edited out because I'm going about this the wrong way, lol. Sorry!

Edited November 18, 2016 by Galen

[Dan]

LOL there are no hidden messages in any part of my first post,what you see is what you get with me,  I am just curious about this story you are telling. 

I am legitimately mind blown that you didn't know that a tattoo was put on you,

do you mean that maybe you were drugged or something ,and you were unconscious ? even if that were the case,you would still have the after effects and healing that you would have known about.

sorry but this sounds bizarre to me.

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Dan

[Galen]

Edited out because I'm going about this the wrong way, lol. Sorry!

Edited November 18, 2016 by Galen

[Galen]

So embarrassing to have to edit out my own double-post. Ayiyi.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Galen

[Devious6]

I don't have a clue to the questions you've asked - I'm a newcomer to the tattoo world. But, welcome to the forum, I hope no one did in fact "mark" you, and I hope you find the answers to your questions.

[bongsau]

it sounds like you got abducted by aliens

[Galen]

Thanks for the welcome, and lol, yeah, I was stupid to have started with the story behind why I'm asking the questions. It completely derails attention away from the questions themselves. (A belated thanks to Dan for helping me realize this, ha.)

Ah well, live and learn, right? I think from now on I'll go with the alien abduction explanation!

[Galen]

You know, I came to this forum from what I thought was a really respectful place, knowing that I was knocking at the door of a tight-knit community and culture, and that I'd be putting out questions that would probably seem stupid and weird. I tried to be as open as I could about the reasons that brought me here, without crossing the line into TMI, hoping that by doing so I'd be able to convey why it would be worth your time to consider them. I tried to keep the desperation out of my tone, although in truth the only reason I was willing to step out of my super boring, middle-aged, non-tattooed comfort zone to even dare to approach you all is because I actually am sort of desperate to figure out what the F*** this newly-discovered mark on me is all about, and because I figured a forum with a bunch of folks who knew a shit-ton about tattoos might be a good place to start.

I kinda figured I'd get mocked or teased a bit about the weirdness of my questions, but I didn't expect to be ridiculed and challenged over the reasons I gave for having the questions in the first place. So I revised my original post to remove all references to the creepy circumstances behind why these questions are important to me, and now it just looks like I'm an entitled bitch demanding random information. And now, having written this, I just look like a super emo and whiny entitled bitch, LOL. So I'm in something of a bind here.

I'm not sure what I should have done differently, but I'm starting to get the feeling that I either came to the wrong place or was just too inept in how I approached it. In general I'm pretty patient and good-natured, but I guess this subject is too emotionally loaded for me to continue hanging around feeling stupid and laughed-at, so I think it makes sense for me to gather up my oversensitive self and make a respectful, albeit melodramatic, exit now. Since I'm incapable of making a graceful one, ha.

Special thanks to Devious6: I really appreciated your kind response.

Best of luck to all of you in your respective journeys. May all your tattoos be well-chosen, well-designed, well-executed, and in the end, well-loved.

[DJDeepFried]

Whatever it is it's probably not a tattoo. There aren't that many people doing them even now. No idea about the '80s but the first time I heard about them was the '90s. I'm really curious about the story behind it all but good luck to you. Have you ever had an MRI done? Maybe it's that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Dolmago]

It may be a good idea to see a dermatologist so they can see what's happening to the skin. I missed the description - there may be an explanation as to why it's phosphorescent - as it could be something you may want removed... good luck!

[suburbanxcore]

It may be a good idea to see a dermatologist so they can see what's happening to the skin. I missed the description - there may be an explanation as to why it's phosphorescent - as it could be something you may want removed... good luck!

I would say this sounds like the best course of action. They could hopefully help you more than we could.

If they can't, you may be able to talk to a tattoo removal person (specialist? professional? I don't know the term). Perhaps they'd have an idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Galen]

On 11/19/2016 at 0:22 PM, DJDeepFried said:

Whatever it is it's probably not a tattoo. There aren't that many people doing them even now. No idea about the '80s but the first time I heard about them was the '90s. I'm really curious about the story behind it all but good luck to you. Have you ever had an MRI done? Maybe it's that

Apparently it really is a UV tattoo, at least insofar as it's a deliberate, permanent mark, with discernible meaning, made by injecting some sort of UV-reactive ink under the skin. Certainly not a tattoo in the sense of a tattoo being a piece of art that one chooses to receive from a tattoo artist, though, heh.

 

On 11/20/2016 at 8:46 AM, El Dolmago said:

It may be a good idea to see a dermatologist so they can see what's happening to the skin. I missed the description - there may be an explanation as to why it's phosphorescent - as it could be something you may want removed... good luck!

Funny you should suggest the dermatologist, since this whole thing started with her seeing a faint scar on the back of my neck. Interestingly, it didn't fluoresce under the fancy dermatological black-light, but it does become visible under a cheap "party" black-light. Haven't really thought about removal ... at this point it's more of an interesting puzzle that I'm just trying to figure out.

 

On 11/20/2016 at 7:40 PM, suburbanxcore said:

I would say this sounds like the best course of action. They could hopefully help you more than we could.

If they can't, you may be able to talk to a tattoo removal person (specialist? professional? I don't know the term). Perhaps they'd have an idea.

 

The dermatologist was actually pretty clueless. It was only through my own online searching that I learned there was such a thing as a UV tattoo (which is why I thought it might make sense to ask here). I've been talking with the artist who did my tattoo about ten years ago -- the [non-UV] tattoo I chose to get, I mean, lol -- and she's been great: really respectful and helpful. She's checking with one of her connections in the medical field to see if they have any ideas about the stuff that she couldn't explain herself. I'm also in the process of contacting some other folks who were doing tattoos in the mid-80s and who might have thoughts about how someone might've done the UV thing before it was officially a thing. If neither of these pan out, then, yeah, my next step will be trying to reach out to someone who specializes in tattoo removal -- I imagine they see all kinds of crazy stuff, and might have some theories.

[DJDeepFried]

Now I'm curious. Are you saying somebody might have tattooed or marked you while you were passed out or asleep? Or did someone poke you with something at a party or a club? I guess it's not impossible. The '80s was a weird decade.

[Galen]

I'm trying to focus more on the logistics than the backstory, but, yeah, basically someone did this without my knowledge or consent. I know who, and roughly when, but I was pretty young and there was a lot of other crazy stuff going on for me. I guess getting poked in the neck just didn't register as memorable in comparison to the more flamboyantly weird things that were happening in my life at the time, lol!

I had a bit of a wild ride up until my mid-twenties, but since then I've kinda had the perfect life: small, uneventful, and full of love, laughter, and contentment. You know what they say ... I wouldn't go back and relive it, but I also wouldn't change a thing.

[PinkUnicorn]

18 hours ago, Galen said:

Funny you should suggest the dermatologist, since this whole thing started with her seeing a faint scar on the back of my neck. Interestingly, it didn't fluoresce under the fancy dermatological black-light, but it does become visible under a cheap "party" black-light. Haven't really thought about removal ... at this point it's more of an interesting puzzle that I'm just trying to figure out.

For what it's worth, I read that "disco" type UV lights produce UV-A light (closer to optical spectrum) but dermatologists can use either UV-A or UV-B.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Subtypes

http://www.aocd.org/?page=PhototherapyUVB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight#Fluorescent

 

[Galen]

5 hours ago, PinkUnicorn said:

For what it's worth, I read that "disco" type UV lights produce UV-A light (closer to optical spectrum) but dermatologists can use either UV-A or UV-B.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Subtypes

http://www.aocd.org/?page=PhototherapyUVB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight#Fluorescent

 

Hey, this info actually kicked off a search that ended up making some plausible sense out of why the thing wasn't visible at the derma exam, so, yeah -- many thanks!

[El Dolmago]

Interesting!

Seeing as you've been working with your Dr already - your only option would be to look at having your Dermatologist remove it - As my understanding of common tattoo removal goes it involves a laser breaking down ink pigments (different wavelengths affect different colour molecules)  - this wouldn't affect a phosphorescent pigment - your best option would be to have it removed surgically if it's something you are concerned about. LS has an excellent tattoo removal thread with some great advice by a seasoned pro.

Is it possible for someone to apply a crude tattoo without your knowing? Sure depending on your state at the time - the 80's were a thing for sure. Was it likely applied with a tattoo machine? Probably not - more likely your skin was cut and pigment was rubbed in it. 

Good luck!

[omeletta]

Weird things happen in this world...I seem to remember you're not the first person that came here to ask about involuntary UV tattoos...found the old thread actually, maybe it's useful to you in some way:

As for the tattoo machine question, you may have figured this out by now, but of course one doesn't need a machine at all. Just something that puts the ink deep into the skin, a needle usually. Traditional tattooing was and is done this way as well as stick and poke tattoos. No special equipment needed as such and no electricity. No noise made. 

Good luck with your research!

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by omeletta

[Galen]

@El Dolmago, I don't know if my dermatologist is gonna be all that helpful if I decide to go the removal route. Not even sure if she'll have any info about the efficacy (or lack thereof) or potential dangers of laser removal, especially UV tattoo removal, even though her specialty is in laser therapies. As for surgical removal ... I haven't really thought about that at all. I guess if there are health risks associated with early UV inks, it might be something to consider. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Wow, @omeletta,thanks for the link to the other thread. Really appreciate you digging it up for me. Some useful info in there, and on a side note, it's both comforting and disturbing to know there are others who have experienced something similar.