Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Scarce Plate 3 Matthew Flinders $1 On Very Thick Paper

 
Previous Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
756 Posts
Posted 01/08/2019   10:03 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Rob041256 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Galeoptix

I didn't misunderstand, I know that paper thickness is not a variety, but paper thickness can make a major difference in the rarity of the variety, as I explained earlier in this thread.

Editors and owners of the Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Catalogue really have no interest in the display you have shown, their description of paper structure is easy to read and the drawings that show the paper structure just as easy to understand, your "fly screen" images, succinctly described by KGV Collector, is very difficult to understand.

It is obvious you have put a lot of work into your analysis but it is just too complicated for the majority of stamp collectors to understand.

Also, not all varieties are printer's waste, I have printer's waste that were part of the 1940s material stolen from the Note Printing Branch, and I have errors made during printing which were overlooked by printing staff, the varieties I have are not common, I have a one of a kind, I have another which only 2 exist, and another which only 9 exist, to name a few, these are not printer's waste.

It is amazing how those who supposed to understand what a printer's waste is, just cannot differentiate between an overlooked error and what is known as a printer's waste.

In the ACSC it mentions printer's waste, but it does not use that reference to identify all varieties, if it were, then all varieties in the ACSC would be referred to as printer's waste.

I do not collect "fly specks" but I do know that many philatelists find great interest in them, and why not, they are errors regardless.

Rob
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
Canada
385 Posts
Posted 01/09/2019   10:40 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add itma to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
[quote]Thick and thin paper are NO varieties, they are structural variants in the context of what instruments and ingredients the printer has available and he is conscious in using it./quote]

I see no difference between Paper "varieties" and Constant Plate Flaws. Just as the printer uses paper weight consciously, he also uses the printing plates, which may or may not contain flaws, consciously. I suspect that any good printer would know exactly what flaws exist on that plate. I do agree that choice of paper is at the macro level while most plate flaws are at micro level but that is just a matter of degree.

By your definition, shades would also not be varieties. as the printer is just consciously using an ingredient (ink) that is available to him. But, of course, he could well use a grade of paper or shade of ink other than the normal. The ink case is well seen in the case of KGV side faces during World War I.

I think pragmatically it all boils down to what price the market will bear for any particular variation. There will be a common understanding of the base price for each issue, and anything that commands a different price or requires a separate listing in a catalogue is a de facto variety.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
897 Posts
Posted 01/09/2019   11:45 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Galeoptix to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
And also the term "flaw" is incorrect, there are certain characteristics of the printer's sheet which are nobody's fault!

Having some spots on your skin doesn't mean that you are flawed :)

Whenever you try to make lists of the (main) streams in stamp production, you will find that most shades have no systematical usage for the printer nor for the post office. It does occur that the Post Office decides that the colours are too heavy, too dark and want to have lighter, brighter colours. Then we don't speak of shades. It all bolis down the conscious decisions by the printers or the post office to make changes.

Not always will these changes be documented! In Switzerland, the 1862 definitives had a controll mark that was applied at the back of the stamps for 12 years, then a change and the mark was to be found at the front. Even Swiss specialists think of this as a variety since they can't find a thing in the archives... Any philatelist with common sense will realize we have two variants here, no varieties. :)
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
Canada
385 Posts
Posted 01/09/2019   2:48 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add itma to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Well of course, this is the Australian stamp forum and colour shades, mainly as a result of the number of printers that went off to fight in WWI, are an issue which is well documented. KGV side faces have about 5 or 6 recognized each during the war periods, with more to come later. Red, in particular, has a spectacular but sometimes subtle range, per the following:





And I can't quite get my mind around the difference of "variation" and "variety". To me it makes sense to document all different examples (I'm trying to stay away from Variety and Variation) of a given issue under a common reference point. That may be the first example released or the most common version.

But this is just my personal opinion.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by itma - 01/09/2019 2:51 pm
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
756 Posts
Posted 01/09/2019   6:30 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Rob041256 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
If I have a stamp that is different to other stamps in its category that is known as a variation; and if I have a few variations or many variations of that stamp it is known as a variety. The common term today is referred to as a variety or varieties by stamp catalogues and the philatelist.

The word variety has been used for decades, I have a block of 4 that is unique, it has a very early plate crack, although that is a variation, it is commonly termed a variety even though only one exists.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by Rob041256 - 01/09/2019 6:37 pm
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
756 Posts
Posted 01/09/2019   7:27 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Rob041256 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The term "flaw" is correct; it defines the difference in a stamp to that of others in its category.

Quote:
Having some spots on your skin doesn't mean that you are flawed

Tell that to a supermodel. If a customer buys a china cup and notices the handle slightly separated that is a flaw, it went through production and into a retail store for sale, if it were detected while being prepared for the distributor, it would be seen as unacceptable and destroyed.

A flaw is a variety not detected and has made its way to the post office counter; a printers waste was detected before issuance, placed in a bin and sent to the furnace, instead of completing its destiny from the printing press to the furnace it somehow left the premises by the back door and ended up, not on a post office counter but directly into the hands of a stamp dealer, such was the case of the 1940s material stolen from the Note Printing Branch; today these formerly stolen items are still not referred to as varieties (flawed), but for what they are - formerly stolen material from the Note Printing Branch,

Quote:
Any philatelist with common sense will realize we have two variants here, no varieties

Variety is plural for variant, though "variety" is the preferred term to identify one or more errors today. And all philatelists today will call their special stamp a variety, not a variant.


Quote:
Whenever you try to make lists of the (main) streams in stamp production, you will find that most shades have no systematical usage for the printer nor for the post office. It does occur that the Post Office decides that the colours are too heavy, too dark and want to have lighter, brighter colours. Then we don't speak of shades. It all boils down the conscious decisions by the printers or the post office to make changes.

What happens if the doctor blade removes too much ink or not enough and leaves an unintentional shade and that sheet is undetected and sent out with other sheets for distribution, or if a sheet not intended for distribution but was accidentally added to sheets for distribution and ended up at the post office counter.

If stamps that have errors of any kind, or have a shade change (more than one variation of the same colour) intentionally or not, they are known as varieties.

The 1982 Humpback whale on the left is the official design for distribution, the same stamp on the right was rejected and not intended for distribution; but through a mistake at the printers a sheet of the rejected design was included with the approved design.

This rejected sheet was eventually bought over the counter and later detected by a stamp dealer and officially referred to as a major variety (otherwords, a major variation of the official design}; if this sheet left the printers via the back door it would be referred to as printer's waste.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by Rob041256 - 01/09/2019 7:39 pm
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
1950 Posts
Posted 01/11/2019   9:13 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add jimjamtwo to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I don't know what to do think about your comment, Rob. I bet that if checked on the appropriate equipment that the two stamps shown would be found to be substantially thinner than the regular issues especially the first one. In the ACSC, no mention is made of a particular type of paper for thin paper entries. In some of these entries, however, thickness in mm. is given.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by jimjamtwo - 01/11/2019 9:14 pm
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
756 Posts
Posted 01/12/2019   05:52 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Rob041256 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi jimjamtwo

The stamps you posted are not thin paper as these issues were only issued on regular paper, to make sure I didn't mislead you I contacted the Juzwins to see if those stamps were ever issued on thin paper, and the answer was "no" (but then, here is when the contradiction comes in, there are the unknown discoveries).

If you do use a micrometer, this is what the ACSC determines as thin paper.

"A thin paper variety occurred in the 1d green Die II early in 1939 (the pelure paper I posted on this thread earlier), and again it was found on a number of issues in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Normal paper thickness (including gum) can be considered to vary between 0.083mm and 0.091mm. The thin paper varieties generally gauge between 0.070mm, the thinnest varieties having a semi pelure quality.

Thin paper stamps characteristically have the design clearly visible from the back, but this feature should not be used as the sole determinant, since normal thickness paper varied in translucency. Measurement by micrometer is essential; the latter occurrences of thin paper suggest that at least one full consignment of paper was manufactured thinner than usual.

The stamps found are 2d scarlet King (No. 23aa), 3d blue King (No. 231a), 3d red King (No. 251a), 3d purple-brown King (No 253a), 7d King (No. 257a), 1/0d King (No. 259a), 1/3d Bull (No. 260a), 2/- Aboriginal Art (No. 263a), 5/-, 1 and 2 Coat-of-Arms (No. 268a, 27a, 271a), 2d Pan-Pacific Jamboree (No. 274a), and 2d Lord Forrest (No. 277a)".


The 1/3d Bull (No. 260a) is believed not to exist, and the ACSC currently does not mention the 1942 5d Emu on thin paper (shown at the bottom of page one of this thread), it will be added to the soon-to-be-released 2019 edition of the KGVI catalogue. The 1952 4d King red (shown on page 2 of this thread) is also an unknown thin paper variety.

If you still feel confident that you may have an unknown thin paper variety, use a micrometer or have it expertised, I would be most interested, unknown issues are discovered once in a while.

Rob
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by Rob041256 - 01/12/2019 05:54 am
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2019 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2019 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.58 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05