Is This Considered Offset On Back Of This Stamp..?

Need a little help..Promise it will be the last one..Is this good enough offset to consider it an offset stamp..?

Robert

I believe the accepted term for this is set-off rather than offset, to avoid confusion with the type of printing. And if specks of ink count as set-off, then your stamp also should also considered a set-off. JMO

This looks like U.S. Scott 634 which is a Stickney rotary press wet printed sheet stamp. Thus, it looks more like the ink from the front of the stamp showing on the back of the stamp through the paper.

jogil..If that is the case then why does the 2 ink lines (on the left margin) not show up on the back of the stamp to..?

Robert

You mean the electric eye marks? I don't know if these marks were as deep as the stamp design was on the printing plate.

I guess jogil..the 2 marks on the left..?

Robert

Flat plate stamps have set-off on the paper under the gum. After printing and before gumming sheets were stacked to dry. It is here where sheets stacked on each other could have gotten an impression transferred onto the back of the sheet above it.

However, your stamp is a rotary press stamp which usually doesn't have set-off and if it did which is unusual it would be on the gum. Between the printing station and gumming station the streaming printed web roll was dried. Then it was gummed after it was dried and it was dried again after gumming. Then it was rolled up after being gummed and dried. It is at this point where it might be possible but not very probable due to so much prior drying that an impression might be transferred to the gum of the stamps that are rolled below the ones rolled above. Also See https://goscf.com/t/37317

I can see at least one of the EE markings on the back - the one on the bottom.


Peter

Are we seeing ink on the back or are we seeing thru the stamp?

I don't think it's a set off, you'd see a deeper red on the back from being directly in contact with damp ink.