Distinguishing Lithographed From Typographed Stamps

Can any one provide some clues as to how to distinguish lithographed stamps from typographed stamps? I don't find the explanation in Scott particularly helpful.

An example that I recently encountered is Argentina Sc 687 and 688. The former is identified as lithographed, 688 as typographed. Both are the same color, denomination, & perf.

Thanks.

Don

When it is used to describe a method of printing, the word "typography" is peculiar to stamp collecting. Printers call this printing method "letterpress," meaning printing from a base that uses a relief (raised) surface to carry the ink and apply it to the printing paper.

Impressions taken from a lithographic stone are perfectly flat and smooth, the surface of the paper being neither raised nor depressed.

Thanks, Timm, for your response. I don't know -- the differences may be too subtle for me to notice, but we'll see.

Don

I have been known to use thin aluminum foil and a soft pencil eraser to detect the difference, though I suppose the stamp could get damaged in the process. Tear a piece of quality foil several times larger than the stamp. Place the foil over the stamp and gently rub with a soft pencil eraser. If lithograph, it (the foil) should show no impression, otherwise you should see an impression.

You should be able to tell though from experience simply from eye balling the stamp or running your finger gently over the surface. Some have claimed the foil will leave a residue on the stamp. I've never seen this, but test the rubbing on a bright white piece of paper to ensure there is no residue left from the foil.

Use this method at your own risk.

Take a look at the back of the stamp to see if there is some impression made on the back of typographic stamp. However, some consider the frame lines to be messy and uneven on the typography stamps and neater and even on the lithography stamps.

Thank you, HungaryForStamps & jogil. I'll practice trying to sense the raised printing and use the aluminum foil as a last resort.

Don

The main difference I notice is in the quality of the print. Sometimes it can be harder to tell lithographed stamps from recess and I've been surprised a few times. Typographed/letterpress stamps are good at producing flat areas of colour but usually the engraving is not shown off as well.

Just to reinforce what was said above, only recess printing/intaglio looks like the printing is raised. The impression you are looking for on a typo stamp is on the back of the stamp not the printed side. It often doesn't show in a used stamp.

Thanks, jjarmstrong. but, alas, I collect at least 95% used stamps! I will continue to try to "see" the raised printing.

Don

I've noticed, sometimes on typographed stamps, the ink used in the lettering gets squeezed to the edges of the letters. The letters will get a slight "outlined" effect, where the ink is darker on the edges than in the center.

Robert

Yet another clue to use. Thank you, Robert.

Don

The offset-litho version is much more detailed:



In typography:

Galeoptix:

Very helpful! Thanks for posting the comparison of the two.

Don

I just noticed this thread and if the OP is still
looking for differences between Argentinian litho and typo
stamps then perhaps some posts on this thread might help.


http://goscf.com/t/17709&whichpage=2

Lithograving:

Thanks for your reply. The comparisons in your link are very helpful. Distinguishing between the two printing processes remains challenging for me. Perhaps someday I will be able to identify each easily.

Don

For your Lexicon.
incunabulum

A book or parchment printed prior to 1501, generally showing the earliest forms of Typography.

Plural : incunabula