Kyösti Kallio 0,60 Mk Finland 1973 – Flaw Or What?

I was riffling one of my stockbooks and paid attention to a note I have once made to a stamp: green frame. The frame and the text at top are green (left stamp). On the right is a normal stamp with gold frame and text.

The green frame is also thicker, and the text is a little fuzzy.

I know that if a stamp is exposed to direct sunlight, some colours can change or fade, but it should not widen printed lines. Also UV radiation yellows white paper. Otherwise the stamp look normal.

Was there more than a single printing?
Are both printed by the same process?
If so, the ink might have become contaminated or be missing a component when mixed in one printing.

It is a commemorative stamp, so one print of 5 million stamps.

"It is a commemorative so it must be a single print" is not a universal truth.

There exist plenty commemoratives that have been printed by more than one method. Also, a print run of 5,000,000 may have been executed over several days requiring more than one batch of ink. Sometimes, more than a single plate or cylinder was used to print commemoratives.

The background to the portraits also are slightly different. The left-hand stamp has a deeper colour than the right-hand stamp. It could be a missing colour or a different ink mix. I am tempted to agree with you this has not been caused by light exposure.

Definitives are printed over a long time, so there may be different variations, but these stamps have been studied thoroughly. Commemoratives always look the same. Should the Post Office discover errors in printed stamps, it would do everything possible to avoid those stamps to be delivered to local post offices.

I asked the Finnish dealer if they have something to say about it. They have the best knowledge of the Finnish stamp. Let's see what they answer.

The left stamp green border changes (top to bottom) colors (from lighter green to darker green; this makes me think 'color changeling'. I cannot think of a inking issue which would cause that degree of color change within the span of a single stamp.
If it was an inking issue, then there would be a number of other panes of stamps showing the same defects. But other examples not seen or noticed since the 1970s? Seems unlikely.
Don

Do both stamps have full gum?
Gold is notorious for the rogues to meddle with.

Yes they both have intact gum. It was good that you asked it, because the backside is also different. It seems that the ink had penetrated through the paper indicating that there was something wrong with the ink.

Again, that is not a universal truth. Stanley Gibbons Specialised parts 3 and 4 list many varieties including stamps printed from different cylinders and even on different makes of presses.

http://goscf.com/t/75091
http://goscf.com/t/75090




Another statement that is not a universal truth. I am quite willing to believe Finland's post office is and has been doing this. There, however, are plenty examples of post offices creating varieties. As per above that are two examples of operational varieties: what has not been defined as error is not avoided to be delivered.
Standards in the 1970s were not what they are now.

I was talking about Finnish stamps and printed after 1953. Before that there have been different shades on definitive stamps of which some were printed over two decades.

Finland's Post Office don't want to give any gifts to stamp collectors, so every sheet containing a flaw or any kind of anomaly is destroyed before they reach a collector.

I want to correct my previous post. The ink did not penetrate through the paper but was "stamped" from another stamp when the sheets were stacked up. So there must be at least two sheets of these stamps.

This "flaw" cannot be found in the Finnish catalog.

Please send it in to a certifying organization and let us know the results when they return.
Don

I keep with my original thought either the ink was contaminated at some time during the production run, or the print run was executed in at least two batches with one batch having a faulty ink mix. So, I agree with Don and with your original analysis.

Here is the catch:




Now, either that is true in which case it must be a colour changeling as it cannot have occurred before inspection. Or the error passed inspection disproving that statement.

If it is the first, the offset would then suggest a batch was not dry before passing the inspection and storage at a distribution facility or post office was sub-optimal. If anything will not have passed a check, it would be sheets with wet ink.

Frankly saying, I don't know how accurately those sheets were inspected. If there were 50.000 sheets, it was quite a task to manually inspect everyone. Probably such an error was difficult to notice, and I don't know where the inspector looked at. It could have been based on spot check... A missing colour would have been easy to notice, but this one not so easily. How knows..? It was 50 years ago.

If the back of this stamp is showing setoff (offset), then the 'normal' stamps would also be found with setoff.

The most likely explanation is the one which requires the fewest number of assumptions. The debate is great but ultimately images and opinions are not a substitute for a 'stamp-in-hand' examination by an expert/certifying organization.
Don

Yes, you are right.

I had a quick look at the modern stamps (1963 -), and the most common oddity is problem with perforation – about 20. Next ones are gum on the image side and minor plate flaws like this one: Chile Bay.



One would expect that a perforation offset would have been easy to see, if an inspection was done.

Just one thought: did you have a close look at the surface of the unprinted parts? The suffusion might be due to a lack of coating. But you would expect other colours to suffuse as well.