John, I am bit surprised at your classification of a 'pissing match; I see it as a discussion. I am also a bit surprise that as a person who has a reputation of being a serious researcher who not only relies on but also encourages the use of original source material like Postal Service documentation that you would not support asking question(s) that seek a better understanding of how others have reached their conclusions. This is why I was asking about original documentation and a better understanding of how we have gotten to where we are today on stamp inks/colors.
In my opinion this is a very good time to ask this question and seek a better understand how we got here. Like this community, the digital world is now seems to be supporting anonymous online opinions as facts. We have some anonymous folks here that certainly sound intelligent and logical, seem to have experience. Is this good enough for the rest of us to consider their posts as being factual? Do we blindly accept them as experts? Many times it appears they some of us willing to accept opinions as 'facts' as long as the posted opinion agrees with our own preconceptions (or supports that we own a 'rare' variety). Into the album it goes with a note that it is a rarity.
I have asked some folks I know who are quite experienced with Bank Note companies (and have taken part of examining Bank Note archives) if they have ever seen anything on the inks/colors used to print bank notes (currency). They replied that they have never seen this kind of documentation in decades of experience and study. Not too surprising since the printing companies went to great lengths to make counterfeiting harder.
The questions in my mind are as follows. Is the concern for counterfeiting the reason that we seem to not have any printing/ink documentation for stamp production. If so, is virtually everything we know about stamp hues/color based upon observations of others? If this is so, how much do we know how they reached those conclusions? If we cannot answer basic questions like what their ambient lighting was used or how color naming was applied, then perhaps more research is needed. Don
Ok, since I really didn't get a yes or no answer as to if anyone has seen the 1938 1¢ Washington in this dark color I'm going to list my reasons for asking.
First a description of what I have: Deep green, sage green or possibly gray green 1938 1¢ Washington Scott #804, design A276, perf 11 x 10½, no watermark, used, wavy line cancelation, smudge above the forehead and two ink(?) spots at the top of the stamp design. The paper is .006" thick and appears to be of same or slightly better quality as the rest of the Prexie series. There is a flaw on the back which is not readily visible. It appears someone attempted to tear the stamp off of an envelope creating a flap of thin paper vertically across the back, then decided to soak the stamp off to not further damage the stamp. The back shows a slight yellowish tint when viewed with a magnifying glass appears to be the same color as the gum found on mint stamps. I'm guessing this is gum residue trapped in the paper fiber.
Here are my reasons for asking the about this stamp instead of just marking it off as another #804.
1. Scott makes no mention of any other color for the #804 in either their standard or specialized catalogue besides green. I checked another online catalogue and a website called www.theswedishtiger.com, neither of those sources list a dark green version of this stamp. A note about the website "theswedishtiger: I have found that this site lists color variations usually not mentioned by Scott and has been useful in some instances.
2. The crisp clear image is not found on the other issues except where Scott notes that the BEP issued #832c printed with the "dry" printing method. Scott describes the difference as follows: "The "dry" printings show whiter paper, a higher sheen on the surface, feel thicker and stiffer, and the designs stand out more clearly than on the "wet" printings."
3. In my opinion the stamp I have in question fits the above criteria with the exception that I believe being soaked off paper has dulled the sheen. I checked other examples of the 804 and other issues of this series and I find the paper to be thinner on those stamps and feels quite soft and flimsy compared to mine. I used a micrometer to check the paper thickness.
4. I do not believe this to be a changeling as I would think poor storage or direct sunlight would cause the color to lighten instead of being so dark.
5. I do not believe it to be chemically altered as I would think that would show color bleed into the white paper and onto the back of the stamp.
6. Lastly I do not believe it to be a fake or forgery as the detail is quite good. Better than the rest of the series. I would expect fakes or forgeries to look like the original issues and match the color closer than this specimen.
I really appreciate all of the help you have been so far in my efforts to identify my stamps. Thank you.
"5. I do not believe it to be chemically altered as I would think that would show color bleed into the white paper and onto the back of the stamp."
You are guessing about something you do not understand. As an example of a chemical process that does not bleed, orange stamps can become "oxidized" (actually sulphurized) which darkens them without any bleeding.
Is it possible you have found a previously unknown color on a popular well studied series? Sure, but not likely. You are further trying to suggest your's is a previously unknown dry printing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
The set was printed in 1938, however all were re-printed up until 1954, save the $5 value. The $1 and $2 values are easy enough to sort...
The $2 yellow-green & black there is the boss. Think "apple green" versus "forest green" when sorting those out.
A few, many, or all of the 1/2¢ to 50¢ values were also re-printed. It is not impossible to distinguish between the originals and re-prints of those, but it is very difficult nonetheless, then easiest when mint, as you have the gums to study in addition. I haven't "tweaked" my own set, as shown, yet. I may never be able to do so. Only the high-values have been determined to be of the original printings.
Quote: Losing weight is extraordinary simple, eat and drink less. No magic, control the amount of food and drink you put into your mouth.
From the standpoint of sustained intentional weight loss, this is one of those well known "facts" that isn't so. Over time the body adjusts the metabolism to allow it to maintain weight on a lower level of food intake. Dieters refer to the phenomenon as "plateauing." In theory a sustained complete deprivation of food intake (starvation) will result in death, but not because the body lost all its mass. The correlation of Body Mass to food intake is far more complex than your initial remark allowed.
In a sense though, your mistake illustrates the very point I think you were trying to make. Believing it is so, doesn't make it so.
Now, back to
For my part, I am intrigued by the fact that in the OP example the color of the printing is much darker than normally seen, but the paper appears to be brighter. Most solvents will cause some kind of paper alteration. Did whatever you folks are hypothesizing do that here?
Quote: Over time the body adjusts the metabolism to allow it to maintain weight on a lower level of food intake. Dieters refer to the phenomenon as "plateauing."
A misleading statement.
As you lose weight, you lose some muscle along with fat. Muscle helps keep up the rate at which you burn calories (metabolism). So as you lose weight, your metabolism declines, causing you to burn fewer calories than you did at your heavier weight.
Your slower metabolism will slow your weight loss, even if you eat the same number of calories that helped you lose weight. When the calories you burn equal the calories you eat, you reach a plateau.
To lose more weight, you need to either increase your physical activity or decrease the calories you eat. Using the same approach that worked at first may maintain your weight loss, but it won't lead to more weight loss.
Strength train, strength train, strength train. You will stop the muscle loss that occurs as we age and you can still build muscle into your sixties and seventies. And that muscle will burn calories. Control your calorie intake and eat well and smart.
My experience with nutrition and diet comes from what I have medically gone through over the last 7-8 years. Part of the requirements and routine of dialysis is strict intake of both food and fluid, weekly blood tests, and weekly consults with a nutritionist.
Not to bore everyone, but folks with renal failure are supposed to limit daily fluid intake to 32 ounces per day. They also calculate what they think is your 'dry weight'. Dry weight is your weight without the excess fluid that builds up between dialysis treatments. This weight is similar to what a person with normal kidney function would weigh after urinating. It is the lowest weight you can safely reach after dialysis. My dry weight is 95 KG (209.5 pounds). So if I walk into dialysis at 97 KG, they will remove 2 KG (4.4 pounds) of fluid from me during the dialysis session. The more they remove, the longer it takes for you to recover. It is not uncommon for patents to be noncompliant and this includes their diet and fluid intake. Many dialysis patients walk in on a Monday (no dialysis since Friday) 4, 5 or even 6 KG over their dry weight. When they try to take this amount of fluid off, you will suffer greatly. Cramps like you have never seen before, nausea, your blood pressure drops to dangerous levels occur at the end of the session. Even worse, it takes much longer to recover from a large amount of fluid being removed (often 24-36 hours). If you have ever been hungover, you know what dialysis recovery feels like.
So many years ago I decided to avoid the pain and suffering and try to live as normal as possible by strictly controlling my diet and weight. I experimented with the fluid removal, my recovery times, and my nutritional intake. The result was that for me, if I walked in at exactly the same weight and had them remove exactly the same amount each session, my recovery time was greatly reduced. This required me to walk into dialysis at exactly 95 KG every day. And of course, I also needed to control my diet to meet the nutritional parameters being measured weekly with the blood tests.
Maintaining my weight at exactly the same has required huge amounts of discipline. Instead of fluctuating week in and week out, my body has acclimated to the 'steady state' and reduced my recover time to about 4-6 hours. I am the only one at my dialysis facility who controls their food/fluid intake like this and they give me the opportunity to speak to other patients on controlling their weigh/fluid intake around the Western NC area. My approach includes keeping a scale in the kitchen next to the refrigerator, if I think that I am thirsty or hungry I stand on the scale every time I go into the kitchen. I spend a LOT of time on the scale each day but it is far better than suffering every other day and losing this time to recovery. I am also one of the few dialysis patients who takes no meds to control my phosphorus and potassium, I control this only via nutrition.
It has not been easy to give up eating/drinking for enjoyment, something that most everyone does and I certainly did for years. I now only eat/drink to stay alive and so I do not spend 50% of my time recovering the dialysis 'hangovers'. It sucks and many, many dialysis patients refuse to do it. I literally have watched many friends die because they refused to quit eating/drinking improperly; it is a level of control that they were not willing to do and choose death over making this change. Probably one of the primary reasons that the 5-year survival for patients receiving HD and PD is around 50%.
But I know that we can highly control our food and fluid intake and maintain the same weight day in and day out. (FYI, exercise makes this level of control much harder, your body responds to the increased exercise and calorie loss by making you hungrier and thirstier!). Don
Quote: FYI, exercise makes this level of control much harder, your body responds to the increased exercise and calorie loss by making you hungrier and thirstier!).
No doubt thirstier but not necessarily hungrier in my case. I went from 350 pounds at one time to my current 175 pounds by nutritional discipline. Two years ago, I upped my game and started a serious weight training/cardio regimen combined with the right diet. I also train my core daily which helps tremendously with everything I engage in. No empty carbs, alcohol, refined sugars, fatty and fried foods. Fruit has been great since we use and store excess calories from fructose differently and in a good way. I also carefully monitor and control my calorie intake. 150 grams of protein per day, fruits and salads minus too much garbage dressing. Proteins come from lean meats. My calorie intake ranges from 2500 on weight days to 2000 on cardio days and I adjust as necessary for other activities that burn energy. I never run a calorie deficit of more than 10-15% of my required calories to be static.
I hydrate well. Hydration does many things including satiate hunger, helps with the fat metabolism process and is critical to building and maintaining muscle, especially as we age.
The end result from two years ago was a loss of 45 pounds of body fat and an increase in lean muscle mass of 25 pounds. I currently have 15 % body fat. When I started my cardio two years ago, I could bike at a level 5 for 20 minutes with a heart rate of around 130. Now I bike 20 miles in an hour at a level 15 and am hard pressed to exceed 100 BPM. I use a recumbent bike because I need both knees replaced and wear orthopedic braces.
I had HBP and was on three medications. I trained and dieted myself off of all three.
My favorite saying is "you cannot out train a bad diet".
You can also do whatever you set your mind to. The human body is a miracle even when broken.
Don - I admire you to no end for what you do and what you deal with and how you deal with it. You are a champion.
My 2010 Scott specialised lists only two colours for the 1¢: green, and light green, and both for 1938, only. But there we have, above at right, a rather deep, greyish, bluish, green, albeit used, dull somewhat, and all that that may entail. Did someone soak it in who knows what? Was it bombarded by enemy radiation?
During war, the quality of things back at home tends to suffer: smaller packages, fewer cookies, or none at all. Artists are having difficulties acquiring a certain colour, in oil, perhaps. War is heck, at home as well.
This, what the compilers wrote further...
11/2¢: 1938, bister-brown; 1943, buff 2¢: 1938, rose-carmine; 1943, rose-pink 4¢: 1938, red-violet; 1943, rose-violet 41/2¢: 1938, dark grey; 1943, grey ...for examples. The lower values were most affected, and had their colours lightened, paled, in 1943, in wartime. Green, a rich green, requires blues and yellows with saturation, substance...
1938, 1¢ green...
During wartime, add a touch of white, a bit more black, to the green, and to make it stretch.