Scott 804, 1938 1¢ Washington Color

I have never seen the 1¢ Washington in this dark green color before. I would describe it as olive green. Is this common? The Scott catalogue does not mention any other color than simply green. Up until today I have seen only the lighter green as shown in the stamp on the left. My other sources only list one color as well.

It may be the lighting, but the engraved lines in hair and face also seem to vary more than one would expect.

I don't believe it's the lighting. I have it under LED light. The color diifference stands out more under LED light than it did in the pic.

The detail is so much clearer you might believe it to be engraved. it is not. The design size is the same as the "normal" green stamps I'm used to seeing and it is perf 11 x 10½ like the rest of the 1938 Presidential series.

Scott actually makes mention of two shades ... green & light green. While there is some variation in shading, most of the 1-cent Washingtons I've seen are of the lighter green variety. That said, I have occasionally seen darker ones, albeit not quite as dark as yours. There is currently a plate block being offered on eBay that is of a relatively dark shade compared to the usual color.

Here are examples of Green and light Green.

Me thinks that the OP's darker stamp has had a difficult environmental life and thus the color.

I would think it would be lighter instead of darker and I would actually describe it as dark olive green. The paper is not post office fresh, but it's not faded to pale yellow or buff like other poorly stored stamps. I'm wondering if this was a trial run of the "dry" printing process the BEP. The Scott catalogue states that the "dry" process yields a crisper clearer image and this stamp is by far better than all of my normal green or light green stamps.

It is a used stamp, it is anyone's guess what it has been through during its life.
Don

rb, I believe you are trying to over-think your stamp. I agree with Rogdcam, your stamp shows evidence of mishandling over the years, rather than any unusual production variety. And to build on Don's post, trying to do color studies/comparisons on used stamps adds an additional level of complexity.

More generally, the Prexies were workhorse stamps for the U.S. for more than a decade and a half. Variation is to be expected in such huge print quantities over a large span of years, especially with WWII intervening. Going beyond the meager listings in the Scott catalog, Roland Rustad's book "The Prexies" lists 5 shades:
yellowish green
dull yellowish green
yellow green
bright yellowish green
grayish yellow green.
If you really want to study the shades, then seek out dated examples on clean covers.

I suspect it has experienced a chemical that changed it

And what were his sources on color/hues? I have never seen any color documentation on ink changes from the printers, Bank Note Companies, or Bureau. Has anyone else ever seen documentation or data on ink hues/colors?

So how much of today's 'colors and hues' are just the acceptance of previous catalog publishers, dealers, and authors? At least on modern stamp the selvage contains some ink information.

I agree that over long print runs, and if different printers were used for same stamp issue, that inks used might not have been the same. And I would agree that a handful of philatelists (very few) study a particular issue, have standardized their ambient lighting, and have develop a good color eye. These folks have a better foundation to present color theories but has anyone seen their actual evidence or color data?

If I had studied hues/colors over many years (which is what it takes) I would have collected and compiled my data and not just expected others to accept my opinions on face value. I also would expect my objectivity to be questioned if I had a financial interest in my color theories.

But our hobby appears to me to have built upon a lot of opinions which are now blindly accepted as fact.
Don

Rather than a 'changeling' or chemical damage, or environmental misadventure would it have been a mis-inking with a poor plate cleaning? Somehow the printing of a different denomination on the press (like a 4-1//2c White House, 15c Buchanan, 16c Lincoln, or 24c Harrison) was done prior to the Washington. The plates were changed but the ink used was for the previous darker color issue. Several starter sheets run through for alignment check, found incorrect inking, replaced ink bowl with correct color, wiped down plate & began print run. Initial run had the darker green hue (with light mix of remnants of incorrect ink, but it was close enough or were to be discarded as printer waste & ended up as a souvenir. (or not)

Rustad's shades have date ranges listed with them, which demonstrates considerable study on his part. Does he need footnotes to the level of a PhD dissertation? Several shade differences in the Prexies were note as early as 1939 in "Sloan's Column". Ink chemistries further changed during WWII, note the postage dues c1943 changing from dull carmine to scarlet.

Science is science while opinions are opinions; publishing a book does not make it factual. I also do not believe that publishing dates makes it factual or provides an indication of his level of study. Did he study 100 covers, 200 hundred covers, 500 covers? What ambient lighting (wave length or color temperate) did he make his observations under?

Having enough data and information for others to replicate findings and make previous findings more believable. Publishing a book or a catalog typically is a commercial venture, does publishing a book make anything factual? Is not having enough information or data so that others can repeat the same findings important? John, I am sure that you can list hundreds of things previously published in books in your library that have been found untrue. The only way I know of to verify what is published is to be able to replicate the findings. How is that done if you do not have even the most basic criteria like sample sizes, ambient lighting, etc.?

This is a lot like dieting. There are thousands of books on dieting but the basics of human nutrient are well understood. Losing weight is extraordinary simple, eat and drink less. No magic, control the amount of food and drink you put into your mouth. Yet billions are spent publishing books and methods to 'help' people lose weight. And we now have decades of opinions which have obscured the facts.

I do not buy into a perspective that theories and opinions are the same as facts. Theories and opinions can form the beginning of research but ultimately they have to be proven and repeatable.

So back to my original question, has anyone ever seen any documentation from original sources that describe the different inks or ink chemistry used during production?
Don

Edit: I think that before we stand upon the shoulders of those that came before us we should be able to find answers on how they formed their opinions. This is especially true of a subjective and difficult topic like color identifications.

Don,
I have no reason or evidence to dispute Mr Rustad's conclusions, nor the interest to repeat hs studies/research, nor to get into a public pi$$ing match here. Sorry, better things to do.