Pelure Paper On Banknotes

Silk fibers, straddle margins, double paper, worn plates etc I have a pretty solid understanding of now, mostly thanks to all the help from you guys.

But there's two types from this set that I'm trying to learn about: Linen Paper and Pelure



1. The Linen Paper, if I understand correctly, is paper that shows ridges from the dandy roll which you can see pretty well running vertically against the light as shown here:



I've never searched for these. Do they carry any premium?

2. The Pelure paper I've tried researching but haven't found anything in the Banknote series regarding it. I know that it's essentially like newspaper and is extremely thin and easy to crinkle...






It also extremely malleable, and much like newspaper does not absorb the ink as well as wood paper does. This makes the impression appear "proof like" or more hi-res.

Anyways, I don't wish to separate the stamps from this set to study them, so any information would be greatly appreciated.

I was not aware of these issues being issued with pelure or "linen" paper.

Pelure paper is so thin and hard that the image will show through from the back very clearly. On newspaper stamps it is incredibly thin.

Me neither Rogdcam! I didn't even know what linen paper was until I stumbled upon it accidentally when researching something else here:
https://www.stampcommunity.org/topi...PIC_ID=45366




Courtesy of cfrphoto

Continuously impressed by the level of information on these forums.

Thank you for that confirmation Bart. Much needed right now!

I know that it was used before 1870 for some essays, but I'll continue scouring the interwebs to find something that may be similar to pelure paper for this series.

Hard to tell from your photos but I believe that the "linen" paper is usually referred to as ribbed paper. Are the lines parallel to each other or crosshatched?

You are right! The lines certainly run parallel to each other but go both vertically and horizontally. Cross-hatched.




Can only see them when the light is directly opposite and slanted down, as you would view ribbed paper.



I'm trying REALLY hard to get a picture of the back without removing it, but this is the best I can do for now

I have a question about the "Shade" varieties as well (if it's okay to keep in the same thread )

Would I be correct in assuming that the "Olive Green" shade is only the effect of a worn plate?



It looks extremely similar to the shades here:



And I'm almost 100% sure that this thing is also on double paper... I might need to closely inspect the other "shades" and "gutter margins" for potential varieties. Would make sense to put them on the same page.

Different colors are different because they are made up of different components and ratios of components. In other words, the ink is different. Plate wear has to do with the quality of the design impression. You may perceive that a stamp printed from a worn plate is a different color and maybe it actually is a different color, but not because of the plate state.

For example, the Philatelic Foundation (PF) would not certify a blue stamp with a strong impression as blue and a blue stamp with a worn plate impression as ultramarine.

In addition, you have to consider other printing conditions that occur such as dry prints and overly wet prints etc.

There is endless discussion of colors in the forum archives if you use the search function. Will keep you busy for days.

Not to mention a used stamp 100+ years old, ambient lighting in the photos, subjective nature of color vision, monitors, and whatever image filters may have taken place.
Don

Whether/how much the paper is toned and different cancels will also affect your perception of the stamp color (even if the different cancels are both black - how heavy they are and exactly how much white and how much ink te cover will have an effect).

As for a worn plate, it could produce a lesser inked impression which will appear as a lighter shade than a fully inked stamp.

That makes sense. So a worn plate wouldn't affect the color but rather add a tint to the predetermined color from less ink.




This is a very good point, and recognizing the fact that "shades" and "colors" are two totally separate topics is important when determing color because shade is irrelevant to the diagnosis of a color.
I was blinded by concept of "shade" when making the comparison, but can plainly see now that the worn plates shown here are lacking the *red* it would take to make "Olive Green".

Indeed, the headlining of these stamps should also be labeled "Colors" rather than "Shades".

Thank you for the corrections!

Since the subject of pelure paper among the Banknote issues keeps coming up in comment by Stephen-P, I am returning to this thread because the OP shows an album page which purports to show examples of "Linen" paper, "Silk" paper, and "Pelure" paper from 1873, ostensibly from the Continental BNCo.

What is the authority basis for those identifications on that page?

I have to ask, since the captions of closeups for "linen" and "pelure" make some associations for the Banknote issues that are questionable.

In the case of the so-called "linen" paper I can see a kind of ribbing pattern running vertically and horizontally in your pics. Presumably the "weave" pattern which emerges from that put someone in mind of linen fabric. However, among the Banknote issues the term "linen paper" is most closely associated with the Loewenburg essays which applied his decal process to samples on actual cloth. While I am aware that students of later issues had applied this term to some of the stamps of the early twentieth century, back reading that into the Banknote era is not standard and not particularly well advised unless one is able to compare the technologies that were being used in those two periods to create the effect.

For what is being called "pelure" paper on that page, I think I see a ContBNCo 3c printing on a thin hard paper with a somewhat glossy appearance. But here again, the use of pelure paper for proofing material confuses the issue when applied to issued stamps as that album note seems to do. To settle the matter you will need to cite comparative paper thicknesses down to .001 inch or less and comment on hardness, flexibility, weave, and fibers, if possible. Without those parameters we cannot tell what kind of monster we are looking at. Is it "pelure" or merely something "pelure-like?"

I realize that others have commented along these line already. I am just trying to bring it together since the OP keeps returning to the subject in other posts.

What do you have beyond these album entries that convinces you the descriptions on this album page are reliable enough to be accepted?

When you ask about 'authority', let me emphasize first that it is definitely not me!
But I do have a degree of confidence in the album it came from, which had about 70 pages like this dedicated to only the banknote series. Most of them consisted of NYFM cancels, Waterbury cancels, fancy cancels, complete number cancels, sometimes on nicely-preserved envelopes. And they weren't put in randomly. 1-2 pages would be themed with a specific denomination's type of cancel in very clean order.
A smaller number of pages showed each denomination's shade varieties, plate breaks, paper varieties etc.
The pages themselves were custom made I believe, because the last ones of each denomination sometimes had incomplete designs.
I bought this one in particular because I'm interested in paper varieties (and the cost was more in my range!)
But it was very impressive, and clearly took many years of knowledge and patience to assemble.

This also doesn't mean that I'm hanging on to each facet of it as irrefutable truth.. However, aside from the easily distinguishable varieties,
1) the silk papers are genuine according to what essayK taught me (I actually found another 2c in better condition since then. Thank you!)
2) and the double papers are also quite easy to distinguish when you have a set of them to compare with hundreds of other standard issues.

I don't believe the double paper has been separated, so they probably had the right tools for measuring thickness.

Let me know if you want me to take specific pictures in different lighting, etc.
I wouldn't even mind sending one to someone here if they're eager to study it.

And to be clear, this implies that I'm doing it repeatedly more than once. I only brought it up one time in reference to your and revcollector's John Barwis article, where I thought it was a neat coincidence that I read the same thing when searching for information about what's shown here. Nothing more than that.

Just because something is old and profusely annotated doesn't mean it is correct.