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

Thank you. What the new(er) philatelists likely do not understand is today or in the past 10-15 years the internet and digital photograph has made such quests nearly too easy. Pre-internet you need to get out to shows, dealers, do mail order inquiries, have specialty networks and devote money and more importantly time (more valuable than money) to such searches.

Today without being asked someone** posts ten of the thirteen plate number singles of the stamp. Then we have a complete list of spot (dot) and no spot (dot). If the plate proofs ever make it on line, they can be fully examine without scheduling a trip across the country to view them.

Back in 1983-ish, I took a picture of the dots in the frame line on US E5, Plate # 882 I believe. Henry Gobie who wrote the book on special delivery was shocked to see it. He had tried unsuccessfully to get such photos for his book a few years earlier. I happened to be set up to do micro-photography and thus macro-photography was a breeze. Today most any low dollar point and shoot digital can make the same shot. Progress can be good. Well I can still read analog books when the power goes out so old is still better at times.




**Yes, thank you again ZebraMan!

Re "too easy," indeed. But those specialty networks you spoke of are still of the utmost importance for serious philatelic research. Despite the breadth of truly significant philatelic resources available to us online, it often takes having relationships with veteran researchers, collectors, and dealers to provide critical but otherwise unpublished information and perspectives. So I'm glad you mentioned that. It's really important. Cheers!

@Parcelpostguy, thank you for this interesting discussion and analysis.
I admit that due to not knowing English and German (I use the Michel catalogs), I still have some confusion in the use of the terms variety, error, flaw, etc.
In the Michel catalog, 2 categories are generally mentioned:

1. Plattenfehler = plate flaw (I hope I have translated correctly) by which I understand a drawing difference that appears CONSTANTLY in the SAME field(s) of the sheet (it is mentioned "teilauflage" = part of the prints, in the case when the difference was corrected or other printing plates they were used).
2. Abarten = deviation/variety (I hope I have translated correctly) by which I understand that they are produced by human errors during the stamp manufacturing process (one or more sides of the stamp are not perforated, different paper or with the watermark in different positions, printing on the paper connection, double printing, gum of a different color, etc.) that appear ACCIDENTALLY / INCONSTANTLY.
When I see the term "variety stamp" I automatically think of the second category.
Am I wrong?
I don't have a very clear idea about the term "re-entry" - can it be considered a "plate flaw" for some of the prints? (I understand that it appears CONSTANTLY in an identified field of the sheet, but not in all sheets)

I will answer your question cupram but I first what to add the information I have already promised.

Parcel Post Plates come one of three ways. Why?

All values of the Parcel Post Stamps were red. This caused complaints from postal clerks as they were generally use to different colors for different denominations of stamps. This allowed a quick glace to understand the denomination. The quick glance for parcel post stamps only revealed "red" and thus, a longer study was needed to determine the denomination of the pane.

The Postmaster General heard these complains and took action. He ordered that the denomination of each stamp value was to be placed in the selvage margin, near the plate number, spelled out in letters, "ONE", "TWO", "THREE", "FOUR", "FIVE", "TEN", "FIFTEEN", "TWENTY-FIVE", "FIFTY", "SEVENTY-FIVE" and "ONE DOLLAR".

This was a simple request but produced a more complex outcome. Stamp images are wider than they are tall.

For the width "ONE", "TWO", "THREE" "FOUR", "FIVE", "TEN", and "FIFTY" fit above one stamp column; "FIFTEEN" fit above one stamp but unless perfect centering of the perforations, part was captured on the perforation tips of one or the other adjacent columns; "TWENTY-FIVE", "SEVENTY-FIVE" and "ONE DOLLAR" took three columns to fit.

For the height, "ONE", "TWO", "FOUR", "FIVE", "TEN" and "FIFTY fit in one row; "THREE", "FIFTEEN", "TWENTY-FIVE", "SEVENTY-FIVE" and "ONE DOLLAR" required three rows.

Placement of the text denomination was always between the plate number and the center of the press sheet of four panes. Thus the placement allowed one to determine if the plate block came from the UL, UR, LL or LR pane be it the horizontal or vertical text.

Some plates were made before the Postmaster General's order and thus had no text denomination (type 1 of my 3), plates made after the order always had the text denomination (type 2 of my 3). Plates made before the order that went back to press had the text denomination added before the next press run (type 3 of my3). So some plate numbers can be found as plate number only, some can be found only as plate number and text and some can be found as just plate number or plate number and text. Durland lists this detailed plate number/text denomination combinations.

As we are working with the Q4, four cent parcel post, I focus on those. In all of my previous illustrations the plate blocks only had the number. Here below are plate blocks with both number and text.

First as normally collected, UL and UR--



Note the inking variety above where only a small portion of the text printed due to lack of ink (not an entry problem)

Now a full strip to allow one to clearly see which is UL and UR--





To the bottom-


Again, note the inking issue (not an entry issue).

Here is a full strip cropped for a full pane.



Now to the side, again cropped form a full pane, the same pane as the image above.


Now just for illustration and comparison, here are multi row or column text examples, both from UL position --



One last difference with Parcel Post Stamps is that while four plates went to press at one time, it was not always four plates of the same denomination. When not, it was usually four different denominations. Such has been recorded and thus the final number of impression for each plate number is known. With regard to Q4, the known with spot/dot and without spot/dot plate numbers, the percentage of stamps produced can be determined for the Spot/dot verse the no spot/dot. There are slightly more no spot/dot examples but that information I had was destroyed by vandals and I have not yet recalculated it.

There was also push back and late changes on the three cent "Railway Postal Clerk" and the one dollar "Fruit Growing" stamps. This is why those three denomination were not yet ready on 1-1-1913 for the start of the Parcel Post Service. The argument over the three cent design was about the width of the RPO car door and if sky above the car should show. As to the one dollar, the lightness of the sky was the issue. There is no recorded date of first sale for these three denominations but are described as:

Q3 on or after 4-7-1913 (EDU mid-April 1913, actual date known, but not publicly revealed )
Q10 on or after 3-15-1913 (no reliable EDU, few dated 1913 usages recorded)
Q12 on or after 1-3-1913 (EDU May 1913 or there about, actual date known, appears in the American Philatelist as an as an article by Robert Schlesinger circa 1980 +/- two years or so. It is a solo usage.)

In parcel post usages, the stamps were not to be dated any more accurately then by year, no year, month, day. However month year was acceptable. This make finding dated usages hard.

As to the 3 cent, Bell & Company of Orangeburg, NY used the stamp on mailing in April 1913 and produced so far, all known April 1913 usages which can be counted on one hand. This is the same company responsible for the quite valuable 1911 "Orangeburg Coil" Scott #389 it previously used on its three ounce mailings containing sample pills.

Now is later.

When making a plate the sideographer will rock in the images from the transfer roll top row to bottom row and from left to right within a row. Thus if the is a transfer roll flaw (or difference) caused plate variety, one can look for a pair or larger multiple where adjacent horizontally show the same suspected anomaly. With the spot/dot of color many stamps side by side (actually the entire plate) showed the same anomaly. The more stamps in a row that show the anomaly, the greater the chance the issue was from the transfer roll and not the plate entry process.

Lets now change to the 10 cent, Q6. French lists one position that has a line of color at the top between the top frame line of the design and the perforations from above the "L" in "PARCEL" over to above the "O" in "POST". He identifies the one listing as P l#6161 entry 3) in his listing system. With the line of color arising from a double transfer.

If you find a single with the line of color you will likely presume you found that stamp. However when you find a pair or larger, especially with position identifying selvage and see the same flaw on all of the stamps, then it is a transfer roll caused issue.

With the 10 cent, Q6, plate 6161 there are many position with the line of color. I have seen many examples where the length of the line of color is shorter and less pronounced. In general it is less pronounced when the plate # 6161 has had the text denomination "TEN" added to the plate.

What that shows is the issue was with the transfer roll (repeated on many adjacent stamps) and it was so shallow that as the plate surface wore down from the friction of press use, it shortened and lightened.

I will post some attempts to show the image from web captured images of a Siegel power search.


a line of color at the top between the top frame line of the design and the perforations from above the "L" in "PARCEL" over to above the "O" in "POST"

a line of color at the top between the top frame line of the design and the perforations from above the "L" in "PARCEL" over to above the "O" in "POST"

a line of color at the top between the top frame line of the design and the perforations from above the "L" in "PARCEL" over to above the "O" in "POST"

a line of color at the top between the top frame line of the design and the perforations from above the "L" in "PARCEL" over to above the "O" in "POST"

While all catalogs talk about these plate flaws or varieties, the definitions are not universal. Different areas geographically define the various flaws differently.

If you must use only definitions as you listed in your post, those do cover all possible differences that can be found.

In the USA there is a rather set list of these many varieties we call EFOs (Errors, Freaks and Oddities). There is a book called US Errors which list only that which here we consider as an "Error," something that can be recreated exactly and was not as intended. In the USA we have little interest in the small plate varieties as compared to the collectors of the general British Common Wealth of countries, present or historic.

The list of various EFOs can be found here ( https://www.efocc.org/Resources/Hot...AA_Cover.php ) but I am not sure how it will translate for you. It does have pictures. It is "Errors, Freaks and Oddities By John M. Hotchner" found on the EFO Collector's Club Website.

As promised, here are better individual scans to see the dots more clearly. I'm not pleased with the results I get compared with other scans that I see here. Cannon MG6200 scanner (max 4800 dpi I believe). I've tried the default 600 dpi, or 2400, or 4800 with similar results once squeezed down to about 900x900 pixels to fit into 300 kb jpeg. They all seem washed out and mushy. Using the default settings with all the enhancement filters turned off. I haven't used the "Free Image Optimizer" that I see mentioned here, maybe I should try that. I did search the forum and found a thread that makes me think I am scanning at too high a resolution and scaling the pictures back down to size is creating the softness. Even at 600 dpi they just aren't that crisp. More experimenting needed. Anyway, on with the pictures.

Thank you ZebraMan. I just happen to come back to this thread and saw you post.

Your Plate #6350 is a great example of when an imperfect stamp still has value as a reference copy.

The reason I came back was to look at the OP with the Q4 6347 plate single. Now it was just listed on eBay this afternoon (6-14-2023).

I am interested in plate variety. This just shows how little I know. I have to acquire French's book. Where can I buy one.

Here is how you show plate varieties:
1. Scan the stamp(s) at 2400 dpi (I use an Epson Perfection 600).
2. Cut away anything that is not interesting.
3. Jpeg down the image (color, not resolution!) if the file size of the cutdown is still too big.

Here is an example (20kB) from a 498e booklet pane, plate 11757 that shows a clear vertical layout line through the plate digits and a layout dot next to the line. Siegel has a really nice database but the resolution of the scans is not high enough to determine whether a dot is just a dot or a layout dot.

French is out of print so you will need to contact literature dealers or look for it on line.

I would not pay $244 for the one copy on eBay at this time (search by book's title as it is listed in general books, not philatelic publications). You should be able to find a copy under $100, under $46 is a bargain.


Edit: Wow, drkohler, nice clear close up.

Parcelpostguy,

Thank you for the information. Wish me luck in finding a copy at a fair price.