Pre-Phosphored Vs Overall Tagging: Untagged Edge ?

I want to verify my assumptions about potential differences between these two general paper types (for modern U.S. stamps). I thought the usually-useful introduction of the Scott Specialized Catalogue would answer this question but it does not seem to.

a) It has been my understanding that the pre-phosphored paper is delivered to the stamp printer with the phosphor chemical either coated on the paper or made into the paper. Furthermore, logic suggests to me that even if it is coated, the coating will extend completely from one edge to the other -- that in normally correct manufacture, there is NO untagged part at the very edge of a sheet of stamps.

Is that correct?

b) For overall tagging, it is my understanding that this tagging is applied (essentially passing through a printing unit on the press) on top of the printed design and thus it IS possible, but not necessary, for there to be an untagged marginal area on a sheet of stamps. On some issues I have seen this untagged area to be very irregular and ragged; on others it is quite clean and distinct.

Is that correct?

c) Thus, if one is examining a sheet of stamps and there IS a narrow UNtagged marginal strip (typicaly 1/8 to 1/4 inch), one can assume that it has overall (and NOT pre-phosphored) tagging.

Is that correct?

d) The reverse (i.e. without any untagged strip) would not be automatically true. A sheet that is completely tagged edge to edge could theoretically come from either type of tagging (thought it is probably pre-phosphored).

Is that correct?

Thanks,

Jay

a. almost correct!

the coating with luminescnce, just as the printed area with luminescence in it does NOT have to be fully covering the reel of paper! But where there is NO coating, you can see there is no coating, whereas with a printed luminescence there usually IS a coating to be seen!

b. correct! But I would NOT call it tagging! It is a coating!

c. No, it can have a coating or a printing that does not completely covers the reel of paper.

d. You can tell the difference between a coating or a printed luminescence by the screen the printing has!

Galeoptix:

Your reply essentially means that the "trick" I was hoping to use is not reliable. That trick was using the untagged/uncoated 1/8-1/4 inch strip at the edge of the sheet to identify the sheet as having overall tagging (and not pre-phosphored paper).

Separately, you menionted "screen the printing has" for "printed" luminescence. I have never noticed any "screened" aspect to this printing / coating. Your mention of it is the first I have heard.

The terminology is getting worse! Pre-phosphored paper may imply any action before printing the actual design! Hence BOTH applying a layer [containing luminescence] by coating AND/OR by printing. The term pre-phosphored is USELESS! As many other philatelically accepted terms without any real knowledge of or interest in the printing process. And so is the term "over-all tagging" where neither for over-all it is clear what is meant neither what is tagging about.

When around 1970 the British firm Harrison and Sons started to promote the manufactured by them paper, for most countries they delivered a type of paper that was coated and had the luminescence [phosphorescence or fluorescence] in the coating incorporated. Only Royal Mail demanded that the stamp paper for the UK had the phosphorescence applied separately either by printing bars or by covering the complete stamp in print [so-called all-over phosphor]. In all cases the print was screened!

Now, now guys. ...Maybe you can tell the difference by what particular stamp you have. Prephosphored tagging may not cover the entire paper depending on whether the paper was "treated" or "coated" with the taggant. After 1989, I believe paper was only "treated" with it. If the paper itself was coated, taggant would attach evenly to the surface of the smooth paper giving the stamp a smoother appearance under the short wave UV. If the paper was not coated paper, the taggant would appear "blotchy" under short wave UV light because it would settle into the paper unevenly.

With overall tagging, the design is under the taggant. With either prephosphored tagging type the design is over the tagging. The design appears more clear if it's over the tagging. I'm not saying this is easy to see, but by looking at some overall tagged stamps (pre-1987) and some prephosphored tagged stamps (after 1989), you may be able to tell by the appearance of the design whether you have an overall or prephosphored stamp. Then apply this knowledge to your stamp in question.

1987-1989 is confusing and only applies to a couple of notable issues. So notable I can't remember which ones. One was the Drafting the Constitution booklet where there was a prephosphored band applied across the stamps. The other was a flag over capitol coil stamp I think. You are most likely overall tagged in this period if it isn't block tagged.


-IBFS

Galeoptix - this folder is a US folder.

I can not think of a single US prephos issue where the tagging did not extend all tthe way tro the edge of the pane (they typically trim the very edge of the web away when cutting it down into panes, so the edge of the web could be untagged, but in fact the panes have been completely tagged).

Likewise, I am unaware of any US issue where the prephos was printed on the paper at the printer rather that done when the paper was made (either as a top coating or incorporated into the paper).

"Galeoptix - this folder is a US folder."

exactly and that is why there is a babylon of inconsistent terms floating around. Stamp printing is a universal thing. Stamp paper gets coated everywhere and in many countries the coating contains the luminescence - phosphorescence or fluorescence with different colours and "uncoloured" fluorescence [optical brightening agents].

Apart from being in the coating the luminescence can be in the paper pulp.

And there is the third option that the luminescence gets applied by printing. The printing may have particular shapes in relation to the stamp design, and as being printed the printing order of both the luminescence and design colours can vary!

All these aspects can be found in any postage stamp all over the world not just the USA!

Simplified terms like prephosphored, tagged, treated do not help at all and are just confusing....

Galeoptix:

Because this is a U.S. stamp issue and most of the readers of this message are likely to be in the U.S. and using the Scott Specialized Catalogue, I was attempting to use the terminology of the listings in the Scott Catalogue. Otherwise there would be additional confusion introduced for the people looking in Scott.

However, I generally agree that internationally there are many differences in the terminology for the same types of papers. And that it would be helpful to have better standard terms. However, there are also many different languages in use as well.

Thank you very much for your input.

Jay,

yours is a polite way of saying "mind your own business".... I am used to the way German experts react to my remarks about German stamp production methods.... And some of Mexican philatelic friends are awfully proud of the idiosyncratic terms coined by them that resulted into their philatelic NATIONAL IDENTITY....

groetjes, Rein

Galeoptix / Rein,

I am afraid you have either misunderstood me or that I have not explained myself clearly. I was _not_ saying "mind your own business"!! I would _never_ say that!

I was merely explaining my reason for carefully chosing the terminology that I was using (because of the reliance in the U.S. on the Scott Catalogue listing information).

Again, I _do_ appreciate your input and look forward to any further thoughts you have on this or any other subject.

Peace in and through philately.

Jay

Jay,

it is OK! No hard feelings!

It is probably that whenever I start digging into foreign grounds - I did so for Argentina in 2009 and somewhat later for the GDR and GFR - I found out that there was hardly any research done based on an analytical approach to / understanding of postage stamp manufacturing. It took the Argentinians a bit more than a year to accept my approach, though not quite understand it, the Germans still loathe me for undermining their faith in their philatelic Bible i.e. MICHEL Spezial.

groetjes, Rein