US 117: Double Transfer Or Just An Ugly Printing?

essayk, I stand corrected, wrong term/definition. I knew my stamp was underinked for some reason, rather than any paper issue. That said, Showing examples to illustrate your text would be more helpful than the plain text itself.

I thought we had good examples in the thread already, but let's nail it down. This is a quick intro to scoop prints vs dry prints vs worn plate impressions.

In this first pic, the stamp at bottom left is a scoop print, as are the two on top. At bottom middle that stamp is a scuff job standing in as a scoop print (poor approximation, not the real deal). On that, notice that the paper surface is disturbed. On a scoop print the paper is intact but the impression is disturbed. At bottom right is a dry print. Note the "fuzzy" appearance all over.





Let's take a closer look:



Left is a dry print.
The other three are scoop prints of two types. The 2c brown shows a complete printing in the center of the vignette, tapering off to spotty partial printing at the edge. The next two show little detail in the printing of the left edge of the frame. Some might be inclined to classify the last two as "worn plate" prints, but that is not the problem here. Below I will show the difference.




The stamp on the left is a normal clear impression. The next two show plate wear. The stamp in the middle is weak in the shading of the vignette frame. That on the right is weak in parts of the frame and in the hair of the vignette.

What distinguishes plate wear from scoop printing is the distribution of weakness. The two stamps in the top row of the first picture show weakness only along one edge. That is characteristic of scoop printing. The two on the right in the bottom picture show weakness at various places all around the design. That is characteristic of a worn plate impression.

If it helps the discussion I'm happy to go to the time and trouble. But not if it just falls on deaf ears (or is that deaf eyes?).

You post on a weekend and expect an instant response? I have a life outside this board. I hope you do too.

Essayk, thank you for the intro to printing flaws, if thats the correct term. Especially the information on scoop prints. Is that what happened with this stamp?

well, now, I don't see any reason for insolence and disrespect, especially after I gave you what you say you wanted (to which you still have said nothing). Not sure you really wanted help.

Westpex is going on,
and the Schyler Rumsey auction all day Fri, Sat and right now as I write (and listen). [Incredible high activity there, BTW. Especially the collections. Eg. Robson Lowe Local Post Forgery Collection. 3400 forgeries - realized $13,000 plus 15% premium. Amazing.]

Then the articles I am writing, and a new stack of arrivals to work through including my lots from the McCusker auction.

Plenty to keep one at the stamp desk, above and beyond the yard work seeding and fertilizing, and a couple of trees to either move or take out altogether.

You know, the usual slow weekend.

Phil, that is a remarkable example of a wiping error (scoop printing is actually a wiping problem). You can see how the problem was most intense at the edge of the stamp and tapered off as it got halfway through the design. I have seen blocks that display this sort of thing and I would love to have seen what this stamp looked like in a block.

It is also interesting to see the overprint on top of the weak printing. But what is that going on at the top of the lettering of the overprint? That was a separate operation, so it should not have had any problem. That it seems to have a problem raises a question about just what all is going on with this one. Not sure I can tell from images only.

essayk, Yes, I asked a legitimate question, to which you provided an answer. Your next comment was directed at me - chiding me for not providing some instant response over a weekend. That was comment was completely uncalled for. When cornered I fight back.

Thank you! I thought it was a dry printing up till a few months ago.
Here is my post asking about the wiping error. I'll post further comments on the overprint in that thread.

https://goscf.com/t/40131&SearchTerms=O10

John, it appears to me that you fight back even when you are NOT being cornered. You are not the only person in this thread who could have responded in that 24 hour null response period after I posted those images. Contrary to your imagination, I did not single you out. Not until you stepped up and snapped back. But I will admit that although I complied I was not enthralled by the tone of your original request. It already had an accusatory edge to it.

If you want to keep fighting me, be my guest. But you'll forgive me if I don't participate, I have too many other things that would be a better use of my time. As far as this thread goes, I will not be replying to your comments or questions hereafter.

essayk, No imagination, your first post pulled a direct quote from my request post, so I took it personally believing I was singled out.

My first post on this thread was in direct response to Brian's comment on being outbid and to your first post presenting the 3c 1857 with scooped print. In it I offered a corrective, without disparagement. That is what was called for. The use of your name was referential for the image and comment. Nothing personal.