Double Paper

After readiong all the posts on banknote papers this last week, I was wondering if the experts can tell us how to recognize double paper banknotes without doing this to them?

The paper will be thicker like soft paper bit will not show a coherent basket weave pattern when viewed in back light. I also noticed that have different front and back long wave UV response, but I haven't done a formal test. Also, double paper is quite fragile compared to ordinary paper.

Clark

I scaned pertinent paragraphs by John N. Luff from the section on Issues of 1873-75 in his Postage Stamps of the United States, would have been quicker typing them.

"The stamps are found in the following shades and varieties:"



In the following scan the two 157s are differnt shades, and seemingly differnt paper, yet both apparently split evenly.
To me it looks like there are 3 shades of the 3C stamp. The first 3 stamps in the bottom row are the same stamps as the row above, just turned over, the fourth stamp is un split yet seems to be thicker than the American 3C stamp.



To me it looks like there are 3 shades of the 3C stamp. The first 3 stamps in the bottom row are the same stamps as the row above, just turned over, the fourth stamp is un split yet seems to be thicker than the American 3C stamp.





I took a color sample of each Sc 158, to compare shades. The shade samples are numbered in the same order as the full scan.

Phil,

In March 1875 Continental used plate 161 to print a run of the 2c in brown on double paper. Since this denomination was changed to vermilion that July, and the 2c vermilion also exists on double paper, it is possible that many, if not all, of the double paper stamps were done in that year. The example on cover in this thread has a note that dates this cover to 1876, although I do not believe that is contemporaneous docketing in this case. Has anyone seen anything in writing or print, other than anecdotal evidence, that is earlier than March 1875 for double paper?

I mention this because I have about a half dozen examples of the 2c brown on double paper, some used some not, and all are very close to the same color. One of the variables that can have a profound effect on color is the storage conditions for the stamp over the past 125 years. In the case of the 2c stamps in your first pic, I can see that the backing paper on the second one is much darker than on its counterpart, and ditto the upper layer. I don't think they both weathered the years in the same way, and so the appearance of their colors is not a reliable indicator of production differences in this case.

But note that the second is overall lighter then the first. I have a couple of examples that show that difference. But on close examination I think it has more to do with inking and wiping than with differences in pigment. Couple that with storage differences, and the difference between the two stamps could appear more substantial than it really is.

On the other hand, something that we need to consider in tandem with color is the question of paper thickness for each layer and the finished stamp as a whole. Here I am finding consistent differences among the samples in my collection, but I have not so far correlated them with stamp color. Nor is my holding large enough to draw anything but an initial set of observations.

Coincidentally, the current issue of the USPCS Chronicle has an article by John Barwis on stamp thickness characteristics of the Bank Note issues. He sets down some important data and measurement standards for the general run of the issued stamps, and once we can figure out a transferrable calibration standard for the measurement of their thickness, this will allow several of us with this kind of specialty material to gather some enlightening data.

If you have not already done so, I hope you will consider investing in a spring loaded paper micrometer/dial thickness gauge calibrated to .0001 inch to measure your stamps.

Here are some additional relevant pages from that 1992 exhibit I prepared:







The writeup gives some indication of what I have been thinking about these up to then. Not much has changed so far.

cfrphoto, what kind or type of light do you recomend? The top paper is very thin and translucent. The back paper is quite soft but niether seem very fragile. More so than Continental's ordinary paper is.




essayk, after examining the back again, I have to agree that the 157 on the right wasn't stored as carefully as the left copy, and it does appear stained, it does have a hinge remnant. I'm a bit hesitant about soaking the remnant off, but frankly, it does look like a bath would improve its appearence. I don't want to seperate the two papers any more than they are. The right Sc. 157's lighter shade could very well be an effect of inking and wiping rather than pigment. As far as reconizing the double paper stamps on cover, it would most likely be by shades?



I do not have a spring loaded paper micrometer/dial thickness gauge, but my son has a set of calipers that meet those specs, but were designed to measure paper.
Mr. Luff writes in his section on Official stamps that the 3c, 24c & 90c Post Office, 3c State, 3c, 10c, & 90c Treasury, appear on double paper and gives the shade as gray black for the Post Office, blue green for the State, and dark yellow brown for the Treasury stamps.

I am not a paper expert. I have a stamp identified as 165a on the reverse. How could I confirm if this is indeed a 165a on double paper and not a 165 on standard hard/white paper? From the examples I've seen, it appears that soaking the stamp may separate the paper layers. Is this so? If yes, will this not damage the stamp?

How long ago was that ID added to the reverse? I just checked a 1973 Scott Specialized, and in that year the designation 165a referred to the color shade greenish-black rather than double paper. In that year double paper was listed but without a separate subscript. Then, as now, the value was left unpriced.

These things change over time, so one has to be careful of old writing on stamps.

[Edit: all of which dodges your real question. I would not try to separate the layers or soak the stamp until I had first of all examined the paper front and back for its appearance of hardness. Soft is fuzzier; hard behaves differently under blacklight. If there is enough noticeable difference between the two sides I would examine the edge under a microscope (30x or more) to see if there is a line of cleavage visible. If so, then you have a good candidate. To go further, I would send it to a lab, such as that at the Philatelic Foundation. This is especially important for really rare types such as the 30c would be.]

In addition to the Barwis article mentioned by essayk, the USPCS Chronicle published an article by Morrison Waud in 1974 titled "The Printing Papers of the Banknote Issues" (Chronicle #82, May 1974), in which a 1973 American Philatelist article by Dr. Harold J. Werbel is cited (February 1973, page 130--article title not given). The Werbel article is about using UV light to distinguish hard and soft papers. Waud apparently ran his own tests using UV light, and reported among other results that "examination of Continental printings under the light failed to show sufficient differences to distinguish the double or the ribbed papers from the ordinary paper stock." Perhaps advances in imaging technology over the last 40 years might enable us to revisit the question?

As long as we're on the subject of double paper and how to detect it, I just got this one a few days ago. What do you make of it?

Double Paper varieties appeared in earlier Scott catalogs.

Scott's 1935 shows the following as double paper:
148a, 153a, 156d, 157b, 158c, 159a, 161b, 165b, 178b, 179b.
I believe I caught them all. As you can see, the letters differ from stamp to stamp. The other letters were assigned to colors, imperfs, with-grills, with silk fibers etc. Over the years some of the varieties were dropped for various reasons. Certainly some collectors with older or newer catalogs will find differences in those varieties as new discoveries were confirmed and earlier ones were deemed incorrect.
So if a stamp has a penciled number on back with a sub-letter, it may have, long ago, been the correct ID for a double paper variety.
Bill

Thank you for pointing out the 1974 article by Morrison Waud. Since last Aug when I began this thread, I have found several intermediate paper Departmental stamps in my collection, including a special printing. One of the intermediate stamps I found is a 3C Agriculture. Below is a pic of the back of three 3 cent Ag stamps, an O3, the intermediate and an O95, the soft paper Ag.

essayk: What I make of it is that you have the opinion of George B. Sloane, a highly-regarded philatelic writer. Don't know about his expertise in the area of stamp paper, though. Is the surface scraped away at the UL of your stamp, perhaps in an effort to detect double paper?

Now that Phil has redirected his thread to other paper discussion besides double paper, my 90c item is a bit of an intruder. I will start another thread to discuss that one and resume the double paper theme.

Thank you to all who have responded. Given my own lack of experience with paper identification in general, I think the wisest course of action would be to have the stamp expertized. Does anyone have any suggestions as to who best can do so?

Essayk, I wasn't trying to redirect the discussion to other papers, but more of responce to dudley's reference to the Waud article