Newfoundland #1 Plate Flaw ?

I recently acquired this stamp. It has some dramatic print defects. They don't appear to be re-entries to me, but rather scratches. There are three prominent lines:

1. through ONE, near the bottom
2. across the main stem, on an angle, of the letter E in PENNY
3. starting at the toe of the letter E in PENNY, and extending through both N's.

There is also a prominent burr at the base of the number 1 in the bottom right corner of the stamp. Also some marks outside the vertical framline in the bottom left corner of the stamp, and two marks in the value square in the bottom right corner.

I haven't seen any reference to these defects on re-entries.com. Has anyone else seen such marks ?

regards,

Derek

Sure it is a genuine original?

I doubt you are seeing lines. There is some kind of cloud-like pattern in the paper (smudges, the way the paper was made, water damage, or burelage?) The lines appear to coincide with the tops of those patterns.

As stated in Unitrade and the trajan catalogues -
#1 is a brown violet color 22 x 22.5mm dry printing on thick porous paper
#15A is a violet brown color wet printing s - 1st on soft paper 2nd on hard paper
15Ac is a chocolate brown color wet printing s - 1st on soft paper 2nd on hard paper
16 is a reddish brown - produced but not issued design size is 21.75 x 21.75mm - unique
Both 1b & 15Ag show major reentry at position 25
Both 1c and 15Ah have a major reentry in l NEWFOUND which is a strong line through NEWFOUND and both upper numeral boxes

Edit- added printing type and papers

No1 Philatelist - just an FYI

as per Unitrade
#1 is a brown violet color 22 x 22.5mm dry printing on thick porous paper

there was NO dry printing of Newfoundland # 1, every thing was wet printing until 1932 Resource Issue issue I believe.

as for the stamp in the post

I am not sure why there would be a "smudge" along the entire borders of the stamp. Maybe it has been "cleaned."

Is the photo taken thru the film of a plastic sheet?


Trodent

Trodent, I am not a specialist, aside from that maybe I trust the Unitrade and Trajan catalogue too much. That is what it states in both catalogues. Note it states dry printings of #1, #5, 12A. A catalogue blunder for years?
Looked at Canada and it states Before 1922 there were only wet printings. Maybe they should make a similar note for stamps of Newfoundland. I hope Robin Harris reads this thread, sees an opportunity for change and chimes in.
Nice catch Trodent.

Mike

Thanks everyone for the comments.

Trodent: it is a brown violet colour. The posted picture was taken without cover in normal lighting with my iPhone. It looks overexposed and a bit washed out compared to reality. Sorry about that, but it is the Photo tools taking liberties with the colour. The dimensions are 22.25 x 22.5. It is slightly smudgy along the bottom border, but I have seen that before on 1d and 5d Newfoundland stamps. I don't think it has been cleaned. The marks noted seem to be printed.

regards,

Derek

Hey Bobr345

your photo doesn't look right.

The bottom numeral 1's have longer horizontal lines.
the spacing between WF in NEWFOUND at the top is different
your image on the F on NEWFOUND, there is a blemish at the bottom that infringes on the white space of the F
the Y in PENNY, has a little vertical tail on the bottom horizontal line,

These might be contributed to the camera being moved while taking the photo.

Can you also send a good quality picture of the back of the stamp?

If it happens to be a legitimate copy, I would believe that the lines you described are from a dirty plate that wasnt properly cleaned before the die being pressed into the WET sheet.


Here is a copy of my NFLD #1



Trodent

Heck with a picture. Take a scan, like Todent did. It will be much clearer.

Unfortunately, I don't have a scanner. But I tried a little harder to capture the picture with faithful colour by photographing it with a white background beside a reference stamp, which I have posted on the forum before and am 99.9% confident is legitimate.

I will also post pictures of the reverse side, and close-up views through a loupe of the defects.

The new stamp is always on the left. The reference stamp is on the right.

There are two pictures of the back of the stamp. The first with normal lighting, which shows that the new stamp still has most of its original gum (the reference stamp does not have gum). The second picture is taken with grazing illumination to exaggerate the vertical ribbing/mesh.

Two further pictures of the bottom of the stamp under magnification, to show the defect in more detail.

Relatively better image. Well your right reference stamp is definetly 1i. The line is quite obvious.
As for the original, the right numeral box #1 has a bump just above left foot. Overink or egraver error or slip?

Edit. I do see the line running through the characters at bottom as you mention. hmmn!
And after more examination of the 1 in numeral block, it does look like a slip. It appears the stroke definetly goes through the bottom of the base of 1.

hello again Bob345

I do believe it is a legitimate copy you have.
But I dont think it is a constant variety or re-entry.
I just think the plate was not clean properly.
This printing of stamps has many variations of ink smears/smudges.

It would be awesome to prove me wrong and find another copy.

as seen on this copy, upper frame line and lower frame line areas



Trodent

Thanks Trodent,

You might be right that it is just a poorly cleaned plate. I just want everyone to look at their collection to see if there are any other similar examples out there. Or if someone can spot something that I am missing. It is a nice 170 year old stamp regardless, so I thought I would share.