2c Washinton Scott# 219-D, 220A & 220c Series

I love this part about collecting! The learning!
Outstanding link Russ, did you happen to work in this industry to have such information at the tip of your tongue? I believe you have educated me more on printing, plate variety, gripper cracks, I could go keep going on and on with the vast amount of information you have passed on.

Likewise, I am a naval marine engineer.
Grew up with a micrometer in my left hand.

One thing I have never seen explained in depth,
and which I would like so much,
is an in depth commentary on the British Rose Engine Machine.

I have one image only.
A huge part of early philately, but a complete mystery.

Rod here is some great resources for you-

http://www.woodturner.org/products/...Overview.pdf

http://www.roseengine.co.uk/pdf/Bas...0Turning.pdf

From the museum..


and...

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...nt=firefox-a

Russ,

Could we revisit this thread? I am having a bit of a problem, apparently with something Southgate reported, if he said what you are saying concerning the "guide dot" that is supposed to be found on all proofs from die C-224.

I have three die prints from C-224, an essay in Lake, a proof in lake, and a proof in carmine. None of these has this dot. On the other hand I have a P3 block of 4 of this in lake, and three positions have the dot, but the fourth does not. I also have a P4 UL guideline single of the lake that has no dot, and a P4 single of unknown position in carmine that does. Finally I have a bottom plate #9 pair of the lake which shows the dot for both positions, and an upper plate #A143 in carmine that does not show it. I am not finding what Southgate says I should, am I?

Essayk,
I'm away from home on business so I don't have access to all my info. First, I am not a collector of proofs and my interest in this was solely for the progression of the first Bureau issue types and dies. I know that Hugh Southgate reported that all die proofs had the transfer guide dot. Southgate published his studies in, I believ, 1937. I know that later George Brett, in collaberation with Southgate, did an extensive study of these issues and the die/type progression but I don't recall if he noted anything different from Southgate.

Brett published his studies in the Chronicle in I believe 1955. I know that his studies revealed a lot more info including the discovery of the TYPE IV and much more info of the die/transfer roll progression. I don't recall if he addressed the die C-224 dot on the die proofs or not.

I know the this dot was polished out of many of the position by the plate finishers and do not appear on many of the plate proofs. If you can get access to the 1955 articles from Brett this would probably be the best place to start. When I return home I will check my notes and if I find any more info I will post it here.

Just got your reply after I wrote the following. Thank you very much, I will look for Brett's stuff in the USPCS Chronicle online. Do you have the Southgate article(s) at home? USSS doesn't even have an online index yet, let alone electronic versions of the early articles.
--------
Ah, after another read of your notes I got the pattern. The guide dot on the die is some distance BELOW the design. I had seen that dot but did not make the connection to this. But that does explain it's absence in the top row, which is consistent with what I was seeing in the position pieces. I must say though that this makes for a rather odd configuration for the reliefs on the transfer roll. Just eyeballing it, it appears that, including the dot, they would be almost the same size as a relief for a large Bank Note. Odd as it might be, something about this seems intentional. I could speculate, but does Southgate say anything about the why of this? E.g. the siderographer(s) was/were used to entering the larger size? or ABNCo was prepping for 400 subject plates, and wanted to simplify the entry process? Plate assignment for the new series starts with the 2c, but had that been the sequence for the creation of the dies? I don't think so, because the design for the two cent was completed later than some of the other denominations.

Too many thoughts for one post. I'll wait to hear from you.

Chronicle didn't pan out, but I recalled that Brett did a piece for the last Essay-Proof Journal, and in it he referenced a piece he had done jointly with Southgate in the 1955 Bureau Specialist. Figures, since he was "Mr. BIA" to the end of his days. Anyway, I have a fix on the Brett piece and will track it down at the Collector's Club. But I would still like to get your reference for the original piece(s) by Southgate. When you get back and get a chance.

essayk
Hoping to be back home by the end of the week and I will see what I have in my notes.

Edit: The Southgate articles may also have been in the Bureau Specialist. I am pretty sure that it was about 1937 and the study pertained mostly to the 2 cent first Bureau types and dies. If you can find an index from this time period it might lead you to the exact date.

Well, I am a printer by trade, and the advances in technology regarding printing are phenomenal. I have printed flat plate before but offset is the way now. Unfortunately for "dinosaurs" like myself, the industry is now introducing high quality printers that accept larger formats and thicker mediums to print on. Also the changes in offset printing would stifle you.

But my question for visiting the thread in the first place is how do you determine the lake or carmine color in 219D or 220? Inks do tend to fade over time, certainly 100+ year old inks. I have an envelope full of these stamps and can never really categorize them accordingly unless I bought that specific stamp. But then, you have to make sure the supplier is giving you the right stamp.