Q-4 Which Is The Plate Variety & Why - Exploring Plate Varieties Beyond Calling Everything A Reentry

First John Becker, I know the answer, but have not published it yet. Took some time and money to determine the answer.

Below are two examples of Sc #Q-4, the four cent parcel post stamp of 1913 showing the Rural Carrier. One is a plate variety and one is not. One is listed in French's Encyclopedia of Plate varieties, one is not.

My question as noted in the title is which one is the plate variety and why.

While I welcome all responses, I really would like to hear from you souldjer777.

There is no trick or "gotcha" intent, only a discussion of what makes a plate variety in this circumstance. Also the point is to illustrate that the mere looking at a single stamp and declaring it some sort of plate variety is not definitive.

Let me add that there is a specific reason I used the plate number single above. It does not affect the answer, but will be used as a point of discussion later.

Edit:
That said, I failed to mention in the OP, the focus of this discussion is the right "4" of the design. However you are welcome to look anywhere else.

Personally, I would love to look at them more closely. The top image is 137KB. You can double what you have there... quality wise... up to around 300KB. I just got the new book so I will have to figure it out. Honestly the only thing I'm interested in - when it comes to stamps - is hunting for EFOs. I will get back with you soon. Mother's day weekend and all... may be a while. Bottom stamp is 186 KB... you can bump up the quality there too... would like to zoom in =)

The images are as they are as I picked them up from places other than my own camera.

The photos are adequate for the specific area.

Edit:

French's is set up in numerical order then alphabetic order. The Qs are way in the back but not as far back as the QEs.

Two plate blocks, one with the described feature in every position, the other without.





(photo source: Siegel)

French's list a known position as having "Spot in tail of right numeral". However, this is as being in ALL positions of plate 6359, 6365, and 6392. I guess he missed plate 6347.

It should be noted that in my copy of French's, there is a section entitled, "What is NOT a Plate Variety". Very interesting reading.

Thank you for those ZebraMan. They will come in handy later.

I managed to find another plate number single example (thanks Siegel), I can confirm it is the same position as the first based upon the layout dot which touches the "3" in the plate number. As there are two top plate numbers on Parcel Post I cannot say if they are UL or UR. When the denomination inscriptions were added, then R&L for the top and UL for the sides can be determined from the positioning of the word(s) when there is a indication in the perforation tips or part of the plate block with number and some inscription.





Edit: The layout dot in the area of the plate number is not a plate variety because it affects all plate number printed as part of the plate and only occurs that way. It is also on the all examples when the word "FOUR" was added for later press runs. Had the layout dot occurred within the bounds of a stamp, then it would be a plate variety, since the dot would make that stamp different from all of the other stamp positions.

Sometimes these layout dots (and lines) are removed as the plate is polished prior to use.

French's list was not all inclusive. I needed to update his list pre 2000 and at this point memory does not serve if I found one or more. My supporting documentation was destroyed by vandals. Why I was rehearsing researching this does not related to my original question in this thread.


So Partime, do you wish to offer up an answer to my OP question?

I have to say that due to heavy inking the lettering in the OP's plate number single is a flyspecker's dream.

While still waiting for an answer to the OP I will add something which shows it may take time to get full information on a PV.


Here are the two top positions of plate # 6169.

UL shows the "16" being partly hammered in out of alignment (French Q4 6169 U? P/1 "16 of P# Doubled---LCF, USS 2/74)




Here is the undoubled (normal) UR Pl# 6169


Per the entry of French, he did not know the doubled plate number was the upper right as I claim it is. The clipped image comes from:



This clipped full pane shows the position of the pane as UL.

Indeed. That and more. Not being intimiately familar with these stamps, what first caught my eye was this "dot-in-T". Images below are screenshots taken from the first post.

Wasn't previously aware of the reference cited in this thread, "Encyclopedia of Plate Varieties on U.S. Bureau-Printed Postage Stamps" (1979) by Loren C. French. For anyone interested, here's an APRL listing: http://1549.sydneyplus.com/final/Po...x?lang=en-US

So I am zooming in to find something more, usually if you have doubling - it's not isolated. But... this has to be a scanner issue right? Taken from bottom image, last post by parcelpostguy. Just hunting.

I expected you to hunt, but I also asked a specific question in the OP. Of the two Q4 shown, which is the plate variety? Also why is the one identified as the plate variety, the plate variety?

As to quality of the photos, they have all be snatched from the web, Siegel mostly as noted.

I posted two copies of the same plate number position. The dot-in-T** as you call it is just some extra ink and not a plate variety. Had it been a plate variety rather than a bit of extra ink, the dot would appear on both plate numbers. As you can see, it does not.

Yes, minute ink splatters, poor wiping, and a host of other reasons. Heavily inked or somewhat under inked both can lead to myriad flyspecks all which are not plate varieties. I specifically selected the non-plate number single in my OP since it is an under inked stamp with related anomalies.

However with the advancement of digital imaging, one can blow up an image to a very high magnification; yet one needs to draw a limit somewhere. Even diamond which are flawless are flawless at 10x magnification as the industry standard, not 100x, 1000x or 10,000x all which are possible.

** There is no such named flaw in the Q series. However that is the exact name for one plate flaw on QE4, the twenty-five cent 1925 Special Handling Stamp. It is quite rare and highly valued in Scott.

Yes, I see the reference "6359 - Spot in tail of r numeral." I could barely see the dot in the right 4 - and later I could see the dot in all right 4's from the later image by ZebraMan. HARD TO MISS. My logic goes like this - if something is uniformly repeating... same thing over and over again - it's not the only one of it's kind and therefore yes, I could call it - it's own variety... by mistake, design, design flaw, human error, mechanical, etc. it repeats. If it's a definition I don't understand - then I've yet to learn the definition of variety.

If you had every single stamp ever produced - then had each one thoroughly examined and documented - then I guess there wouldn't be anything left to discover... or discuss in the forums. Yeah, that's impossible and ridiculous to even think that way. So I say keep on hunting!!!

My original assumption is that the dot-in-T was NOT a deliberate part of the design, hence a plate variety. This seems obvious, because, why put it there? However, since it appears in ALL positions of a particular plate number, then it could be called a die variation. (For some Australian stamps, this could be called a "secret mark".)

I still can't quite zoom in well enough, but is the argument that in other plate numbers, it only occurs in one position (not all positions)? In that case, it would be a plate variety, and probably not a deliberate one. This would be the collectible one, assuming that you knew it was from the correct plate number. It seems pure luck that the plate variety looks exactly the same as the die variation, but I guess that could happen.

I also end with the argument that none of these are re-entries.

Is this the answer you were looking for?