As I'm not a smoker, it has taken me longer to notice this than I should have, but I have become convinced that ordinary paper matches (the kind you buy in the grocery store) simply don't work as well as the ones I remember from the old days. I'm almost inclined to say they just plain suck, but that would be as judgmental as it would be unscientific, and I like to verify my claims when I can.

For some time, I've been convinced that not only are matches harder than ever to strike, but they go out before they burn even a quarter of the way down.

Or am I imagining things?

Were the old matches "better," and are the new matches "worse"? Even those words are problematic, for what do they mean?

But before I get to the philosophical and political implications of the word "better," I thought I would start by attempting to find out whether my suspicions about old-versus-new matches were correct. Not wanting to leave anything to chance, I decided to attempt a scientific comparison under controlled conditions in my own home. Because this is a blog, and because blogs can be read and reviewed by other bloggers, I don't think it's too much to claim that this experiment will have been subjected to "peer review" by the time it's over.

It just so happens that because I collect things, I have a box of campaign matchbooks from 1968. While I never use them (because their value to collectors would be substantially diminished once they are burned), in this case I decided to make an important exception -- in the interest of science!

As it happens, I also have a box of matchbooks from a 2006 store purchase. These are the matches that I use for lighting candles, burned out pilot lights, the hot water heater, and (if I am feeling especially considerate) to destroy unmentionable odors in the bathroom.

Here are the scientific contestants -- on each side of the ashtray, and all ready for the game:

Attentive readers may notice that the striking surface is on the front cover of the 1968 matches, and on the reverse cover of the recent matches. That's because of a 1973 federal safety rule. According to collectors' lingo,

[the modern matchbooks] are referred to as "back strikers" or "reverse strikers", while pre-1973 covers are called "front strikers".

What is beyond my level of knowledge or expertise is the extent to which matches deteriorate over time. For all I know, the 1968 matches would have performed better in 1968 than they do now; the color of the heads seems a little less red than I remember them, but that could be my imagination. In any event, they lit when struck, and as you will see, not only had no problem burning, but far exceeded today's matches.

Were matches deliberately made fire retardent over time? If so, at what point? I still don't know for certain, but I was intrigued by this 1976 CPSC notice, which urged the adoption of new regulations requiring matches to not only be made childproof, but fire retardant as well:

In view of epidemiological data, consideration of various human factors, an intense study of possible child-resistant requirements and a preliminary assessment of the economic effect on the matchbook industry, the Commission finds a latching cover design requirement to be, at this time, the most feasible means of child resistance. However, it is not the intent of the Commission to exclude other designs that might offer the equivalent child resistance of the latching design. Included in the proposed standard is a procedure for interested persons to submit alternate cover designs for Commission acceptance.

Other features designed to reduce the risk of burns and fires are also included in the proposed standard. The proposal specifies the burn-distance and burn-time of the bookmatch. Under the proposed test conditions, the flame must self-extinguish within 12.7 mm (0.5 inches) down from the top of the match and within a 15-second period.

Prior to publishing this proposal, the Commission assessed any possible environmental effects the standard could have. According to a staff report, the only potentially significant adverse effects are related to the burn-distance/burn-time provision because of the chemicals that could be used to treat the match. However, the report further notes, "there is no evidence to suggest that conditions any more hazardous than currently prevail would be produced through the use of such chemicals to meet the requirements of the standard....We conclude that the proposed standard will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment."

Obviously, the childproof "latching cover design" was not implemented. As to whether the self-extinguishing rule was ever enacted, I do not know. However, I can report that (at least in my experiment), when held in place vertically by forceps, the modern matches extinguished themselves in 20 seconds (give or take a second), while the 1968 matches burned for nearly an entire minute (average time 55 seconds), until nearly the entire length of the match was consumed.

Here's the 2006 Safeway match:

And the 1968 Nixon match:

I burned three of each of the matches, and the pattern was the same. "Nixon" burned all the way, while "Safeway" stopped burning in a manner very closely resembling the CPSC's 1973 requirement of "within 12.7 mm (0.5 inches) down from the top of the match and within a 15-second period."

Here they are lined up with a ruler -- "Safeway" on top; "Nixon" below:

Yeah, "three out of three" might not survive rigid scientific scrutiny, but who's paying me to do this? Where's my government grant?

(And after all, how many burnouts from 1968 do we need?)

I don't even think the match industry would approve of what I did, because they don't want ordinary people thinking their product was "better" in the old days. But my "research" really wasn't intended to make the match industry look bad, nor is it my goal here to castigate "safe" matches. I just wanted to confirm my suspicions, and pose a few questions.

What do we mean when we use the word "better"? It's a judgment, and fire marshals and trial lawyers are likely to have a very different view of self-extinguishing matches than I do when I'm crawling around on a cold, damp basement floor in February trying to light the pilot of a hot water heater only to have the damned match go out for the umpteenth time. Older people who remember matches that burned are likely to have a very different view than younger people who probably feel lucky that they're allowed to buy matches at all.

But what the hell. I just wanted to know whether matches were better in the old days. If we look at pure functionality, I think my test shows that they were better -- by a large margin. (The deterioration factor would add strength to my argument.)

Far be it from me to advocate rolling back the clock to 1968....

I've had enough of 1968 burnouts -- at least for today!