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!

Chile Second Santiago Print With Reversed Watermark

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Valued Member

United States
475 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   3:30 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add danko to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
This is not a very easy issue to id, especially using only Scott Classic catalog, but I believe this to be Scott 7f (Santiago 1854 litho print, deep red) with reversed watermark. Does anyone's catalog list watermark varieties on this issues?

It is actually looks brighter and sharper in person than on the scan. But looking at the scan I'm starting to doubt this as an 1854 print.

Much more certain now that this is second Santiago printing



Send note to Staff
Edited by danko - 12/15/2019 4:53 pm

Pillar Of The Community
France, Metropolitan
2433 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   4:00 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add perf12 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
5774 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   4:17 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Cjd to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Great site, perf12. I was simply going to add that Yvert mentions reversed watermarks on all issues through 1867, and gives 9- and 10mm measurements, but that's hardly necessary now.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
475 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   4:49 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add danko to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
perf 12

Thank you very much. Great link.

It looks like that reversed watermark is quite common with these stamps. Also, comparing my stamp to first, second and litho Santiago printings, I believe I have 1856-1862 printing, Scott #9. I sought based on the note in the Scott, Second printing would be lot more blurred. Mine is probably early printing, and looks like vermilion shade in person.

Here is the quick comparison I made for Secon, First and Litho printings.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
475 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   5:03 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add danko to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
A side question.

Scott list these stamps as Engraved, and for me the test for engraved stamps was using foil. This stamp did not leave any impression on the foil except for irregularities in paper, this is why I assumed that this is a lithographed stamp.

Does this mean that foil test will not work on all engraved stamps, or there is something else I'm missing here.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
France, Metropolitan
2433 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   5:42 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add perf12 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
All engraved stamps leave a trace on the foil.If your stamps does not leave a trace that is because it is a Litho printing.
It may be from the Lithographic issue (The only one) by Gillet on July 1854.If so; they are very scarce.
Some further reading;

http://f660b8feb5396b87e648727b5bf1...complete.pdf
_________________________________________________________________________________
Below taken from Siegal Auction Galleries june 5 2008
THE LITHOGRAPHS PRINTED BY GILLET Chile's postal reform law authorizing the first postage stamps went into effect on July 1, 1853, and the first issue was engraved and printed by the British firm of Perkins, Bacon & Company. Stamps were not actually distributed through post offices, but were sold by estancos, local agents who were in charge of government monopolies on products such as salt, tobacco and playing cards (Blank, p. 10). The demand for stamps was greater than expected, and supplies from Perkins Bacon were running low by the end of 1853. The government, unable to arrange its own printing operation in time, turned to two local printers, N. Desmadryl and H. Gillet of Santiago. Desmadryl was a renowned engraver and printer, and his prints from the steel plates furnished by Perkins Bacon were so skillfully executed, the impressions are arguably superior to the London prints. However, because Desmadryl was too busy with his regular business to meet the government's demands for more stamps, the next order was given to Gillet, whose skills and experience were in lithography, not recess-printing. Gillet tried to print from the engraved plates, but his inks and technique were ill-suited for the task. Consequently, Gillet's recess-printed stamps were of poor quality, but the watermarked paper provided by the government was so carefully controlled, Gillet eventually had to turn over the unsatisfactory recess-printed stamps. Faced with his own failure to produce quality impressions from engraved plates, Gillet decided to switch to lithography, a printing method that was generally not favored by the government, and certainly was never authorized. Using transfer paper, Gillet made a lithographic stone plate of 240 subjects, the number required to fill up the sheet of tightly-controlled watermarked security paper. Based on research by Gerhard Blank, we know that at least two stones were made; one from a single transfer of 240 subjects, which resulted in numerous transfer flaws, and another built up from multiple transfers, which allowed for greater control in transferring the designs. The rarity of examples of the transfer flaws indicates that the stone made from the single 240-subject transfer was not used to print many sheets. Gillet's Lithographs were so finely printed that they were considered to be engraved for almost fifty years. In 1898 the first report of the Lithographs was published by John N. Luff. The "squeeze" varieties were brought to Perkins Bacon in England for analysis, and it was confirmed that such flaws could only occur in stamps printed by lithography. Thus, Gillet's "switch" finally came to light, and a major new classic imperforate issue was born. Experts have determined that only 500 sheets of Lithograph stamps were printed. Multiples in strip form are rare, and only three blocks are known. All three are presented in this sale, including the block of fourteen on cover.

https://stampauctionnetwork.com/y/9...ockIntro.pdf
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...7&page_no=19
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Your stamp may be the color "Rose" like lot no.116 ??
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...7&page_no=17
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by perf12 - 12/15/2019 6:14 pm
Valued Member
United States
475 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   6:20 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add danko to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
perf 12

Thanks a lot for additional info. You are a wealth of information, it always surprises me, how one person can accumulate and remember all this knowledge.

That was I always thought, that engraved stamps will leave impression of portions of the design on the foil. No matter how hard I try with this one, all I'm getting is a blotchy relief of the paper. It looks like the paper they were printed on is not smooth.

However, my example does not look like any litho examples.

Sorry, I didn't see the second link.

You know what, maybe you are right and it is lithographed.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by danko - 12/15/2019 6:23 pm
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1997 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   7:18 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add hy-brasil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Actually, the watermark on yours is the right way around. Scott doesn't say but the convention is that they are right way around when viewed from the front. Gibbons does say that, Michel specifies their watermarks illustrations are views from the back.

Another test is to use a magnifier (10x or less) and light the stamp at an angle from the side to check if the printing is raised above the surface. If so, it's engraved/recess printed. I think I see raised portions around "COLON". Litho printing would be flat against the paper (at this magnification). Per above, this can be one of the harder designs to tell engraved vs. litho apart.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
475 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   8:00 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add danko to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
hy-brasil

Thanks for additional info. My Scott pictures them right way around, but they usually picture watermarks as viewed from the back, opposite to Gibbons, so I thought that the one I have is a reversed.

I took 20x magnifier and looked at stamps from 1867 and 1877 printings, and I clearly see raised ink on those stamps. However, the one in question only shows irregular relief of the uneven paper covering entire stamp, so it is a little harder to say if any portions of the ink is raised, but it looks like it is not, just some thicker spots due to heavier ink buildup.

So, maybe it is lithographed.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
475 Posts
Posted 12/15/2019   8:08 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add danko to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
This is the stamp perf 12 is referring to.


Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 
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 - 2020 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 - 2020 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.3 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05