Is There A Scott 634 Variety On Thin Stiff Paper (Says Michel)

Hello,

last days I looked a bit around in the Michel USA Spezial 2014 and found an entry for 634 (Michel: 263 W2 FIx). It says there is a variety of this stamp on thin stiff (or strong) paper. I don't find this in Scott and nowhere in the internet.

Is there a paper variety for the 1922/26 issue at all?
I did not know it.

Thank you.

The specialist on this issue is Gary Griffith. See the following: https://stampauctionnetwork.com/f/f4543.cfm (Lot 853)

#634 var., 2c Carmine on experimental paper, very scarce mint block of four on distinctive experimental paper which is thin, tough and semi-transparent, well centered, o.g., top pair l.h., bottom pair n.h., very fine; 1988 PF certificate; ex-Griffith.

https://www.amazon.com/United-State...p/0940403749

https://www.amazon.com/United-State...p/0940403919

thank you jogil, yes, I think this is exactly what was meant in Michel. Sometimes in Michel there are some interesting varieties listed which are missing in Scott.

Interesting, that it is called experimental paper, which would mean it was used for purpose, but in this case we could have sources from the printing about it (what we probably don't have). Similar topic would be the gray paper during the bluish paper time.

If you may own this book of Griffith: is there any information given in the book about the paper, especially, what is "thin" in mm or inch?
I ask as sometimes thin paper" only appears thin, for example as it is stiff or transparent, but the real thickness is not really thin.

Top two images (back/front scans used and mint) may, or may not, be the experimental paper. They are not certified and just speculation at this point, but, they do seem to be on a thinner paper to me.

Yes, I also saw stamps like this before, but to this point I would have thought, this appearance is due to the ink and other material that had a reaction to the paper. So if the mentioned experimental paper is called "thin" there must have been a measurement for this, and my hope is that the mm or inch are given in Griffith's book. If not, the term "thin" should not be too important for this paper but probably more the "semi-transparent". In this case, as said here, the question is if it could be due to varnish ink, for example, or any oily part of the paper (where ever it comes from).

So has anybody Griffith's book to tell us more about the mm thickness?
And Al. E Gator: what do you measure as thickness of your four stamps?

Never knew about this variety. Learned something new. Thank you.

Stamperix, there is a mention in the Scott U.S. Specialized about 634 T-I existing on a"....thin, tough experimental paper." under the listings for 634. I do not have anything to measure the paper thickness. Just by comparison to other examples of 634, these two seem to be more translucent and ridged. Not scientific I know.

I've never seen "varnished ink" so I really don't know just what it should look like but, here's a scan of a cover I've had for some time, with a 634 dated 1929, that has a different look; dark and somewhat "muddy", as if over-inked, but with a glossy sheen over the stamp when held to an oblique light. The sheen is evident even without the oblique light. That's what caught my eye when I bought it (in a antique shop). If it were just an over-inked example, there shouldn't be any sheen to it? I've not seen any other 3rd-4th bureau stamp with this "shinny surface appearance", only a "flat" appearance. I've not been able to find a dealer at a show with a example of "Varnish Ink"..not that I make many shows.

Thank you again, interesting item - I don't have any varnish ink or exp. paper 634 certified either, so can't tell you for sure, but from what I have read and seen in the internet, your example on cover really has some characteristics of varnish ink.

But about the exp. paper of 634: perhaps you should enlarge your philatelic tool base and buy a tool for thickness measurement, it's not that expensive :). In my opinion the best ones are just the classic (not the digital), like from Metrica, 0,01mm.

The only source for the experimental paper I found is here, page 12:
https://stamps.org/Portals/0/Refere...-Methods.pdf
(this is a very interesting read in general, although China clay is still mentioned there)
The back of the stamp is similar to yours. The paper there is called "rough", whatever that means (similar to the rough of Australian stamps?)

After all I think it would be important to know what Griffith wrote about it.

If anybody (jogil?) owns this book, perhaps we could know if Griffith gives further characeristics as the exact paper thickness?

I think this is the source for all of this:

---
Sloane's Column: May 25, 1935

Electric Eye Stamps on Thin Paper
Albert C. Butzen of Detroit, Mich., has shown me a block of four of a stamp from this printing on a paper considerably thinner than that in regular use and thinner than other sheets from the Electric Eye printings. The paper has a greater transparency and there is the possibility that the Bureau, when conducting experiments with perforation, also experimented some with paper.

As a general rule, stamp paper at the Bureau is held to a very rigid standard and lapses such as the above are rather unusual.
---

As written there the paper is "considerably thinner" - so if a normal 634 is around 0.10mm, what is considerably thinner, like 0.07mm? My guess is that it was never measured to that time. But when it was sold (see link above), the PF should have measured it, and the auction house, and especially Griffith and the new owner. We don't know. And I did not find a PF certificate in 1988 as given in the description.

Have this block of 8 that I wrote off as damaged by chemicals as the appearance suggests it. Reading this thread has me wondering if perhaps there is more here than I initially thought. Perfs 11x10 1/2.

Yes, it looks strange - what do you measure as paper thickness?

As written above, if the paper is called "thin" as main characteristic described by Scott, Michel and the auction house (and the original source), there must be a notable difference in thickness.

So it would be great to get an idea of the stamps shown here (and above) by their paper thickness?

Also, I still wonder if it is given in Griffith's book, if anybody has it at home?

stamperix

I don't have the tools to measure paper thickness. Will have to purchase. Haven't needed it up to this point.

I did find some examples on the PF website under 634 var of the stamp you are trying to pin down.