Plate Errors On Hitler Definitives

I acquired a Michel Specialized catalogue recently, and I must admit to being very surprised how few plate errors are listed for the Third Reich issues. Either Michel or collectors generally are not interested in Third Reich plate errors or stamps were so well produced in that era that very few plate errors occurred.

For the entire 1941/44 Hitler head definitive series, the catalogue lists only 3 actual plate errors (#785 with a Russian-style 'B' instead of an 'E' in 'DEUTSCHES,' #785 with'DFUTSCHES' instead of 'DEUTCHES' and #794 'Hitler with narrow collar' variety). Given that so very many of these stamps were issued, it is hard to believe that there are no other known plate error varieties.

These observations were inspired by my discovery of a 30pf stamp (#794) with what I will call the 'scarface' error. (Not listed.)



Does anyone else have Hitler stamps with errors to show?

In order for an error to be listed in Michel it must be "Part of Issue". Or, a reoccurring plate or engraving flaw. Errors due to scratched, worn, or otherwise damaged plates are not normally listed. Of course with every rule their exceptions, though they are few and far between.

revstampman, that's interesting.

However, I have a recollection of reading entries in the Altdeutschland section in which several varieties are attributed to damaged or worn plates.

I'll have to look through the section to check now.

Rather than there being a lack of varieties, it's more likely that there's a lack of research that has been done on those issues. Some issues, for whatever reason, become favourites for study and get looked at in incredible detail - witness the Bauten (buildings) series of definitives from the late '40s / early '50s, Michel has a separate catalogue dealing strictly with that issue (costing €128! I won't be buying that one any time soon). Schantl publishes two plate flaw catalogues for the "AM Post" Allied occupation issues from immediately after the end of WWII, well over 300 pages of listings.

Somebody in Canada went to the National Postal Archives and studied every last speck and scratch on some of the plate proofs for the Centennial definitives issued in the late 1960s. Obviously they only had access to some of the plates - for example, in the 400+ page Robin Harris Centennials catalogue, the 5c definitive (over a billion copies printed) has only 2 listed plate varieties, and the 6c definitive has 96 plate varieties!

Ryan

I have plate errors every night my wife cooks, that's why I do most of the cooking!

'Rather than there being a lack of varieties, it's more likely that there's a lack of research that has been done on those issues.'

That's what I suspect myself, Ryan.

I have a feeling that if an error equivalent to the 'scarface error' were found on, say, an American or British Commonwealth stamp, it would be worth a small fortune.

lol@jhlovell

I've said it before I don't understand why printing errors don't command higher values than constant flaws or plate errors. That "scarface" example may have been a minor printing issue rather than a plate flaw and possibly very few printed before correction . When I used to be a printer annomolies happened all the time that were usually lint build up on a roller or other things that just required a machine adjustment rather than a plate change. I know it would likely make scotts or SG or Michels a few 100 extra pages in the grand scheme but rarities are rarities. There are many examples of printing errors listed but research and then submitting to the right place maybe more than a few times is required. If you find several of your "scarface variety" then I would try submitting the information to the appropriate catalog.

Nitro, I don't understand what you mean there.
Are not constant flaws or plate errors printing errors ?

jimjamtwo, since you like errors, plateflaws, etc, especially in
the German area perhaps you should sign up to this German
stamp forum (Philaforum) which has many threads about Abarten & Plattenfehler
(oddities & plate errors)
For instance there are over 300 pages of DDR flyspeck errors.


http://www.philaforum.com/forum/thr...r=0&page=370

An error is a non-constant, catastrophic mistake, like these inverted surcharges on the Bhopal Officials of 1935-6



A plate flaw is a defect on the printing plate, which may be constant, like these spelling errors in the English inscriptions on these Bhopal 1886 ¼ Anna stamps:



('NAWAA' for 'NAWAB' on Row 1 stamp 2; 'NWABA' and 'BEGAAM' for 'NAWAB and 'BEGAM' on Row 2 stamp 3 and 'NWABA' for 'NAWAB' on Row 2 stamp 4)

(And no, I didn't make the helpful pencil notes in the margins )

lithograving, thanks for the suggestion regarding the Phila forum. I think I've already registered, but I didn't activate my registration because I'm not sure my German is up to participation in a German-language forum. I can read OK, but writing is a real ordeal.

The catalogs show the errors that are traceable to a specific reason for the error ie a re-entry is pin pointed to exact plate position and with the right math a known quantity exist. With some of the printing errors (meaning a non consistant flaw ) that can not be traced or explained they seem to fall off the wayside. They generally don't have an explanation of what happened but as in the scarface above it did at least once. An example of what used to happen regularly was a small lint build up on one of many rollers would cause that spot in the finished product to have a dot of missing ink or smudge for lack of a better word. Depending on the quality control that little lint flaw could be on 10 or 1000 copies but can't be traced to a plate . If on 1000 copies maybe it gets noted but on 10 it may not be seen ever or until a collector like Jimjam sees it.
Point is ,its there, its obvious, its an error of sorts, but since it can't be properly explained or traced it usually falls to the wayside yet could be an exceptionally rare item.

Thanks Tony & Nitro.

Still some terms are vague though. For instance your inverted surcharges
are definitely errors and I'm sure inconstant since
I'm sure all sheets were not printed like that.
Similarly but much rarer would be the Canadian seaway invert
again an inconstant error.
But then you have for instance hundreds (thousands?) of Canadian inconstant varieties or flaws which in no way
could you compare to an error
Nitro correct me if I'm wrong but in your posts I get the impression
that you believe that a re-entry is a constant error.
Correct?

jimjamtwo

I haven't participated on Philaforum for quite awhile
but when I did,there were always a lot of members who
understood English and could answer you in English
and they were quite helpful.
The Foreign visitor section is mostly in English.
There were even a couple of members from England whose
German was excellent.
One called Doktorstamp was most helpful to me.

Lithograving, I think you have the definitions correct. I'd call a reentry a flaw not an error. (Although the reentry was certainly the result of an error on the part of the operator who laid down the plate, the result is a flaw in the printing plate.)

To take another example, here is cliché 1 of SG 1 of Barwani - the 1921 ¼ Anna



There are numerous flaws on this position, particularly to the top value tablet:



This remained constant throughout the life of the stamp. There are plenty of once-off errors on the stamp, too, like this crazy misperforation seven years later:



Still, a flaw is a constant or semi-constant defect in the plate (or stone or whatever). An error is a once-off mistake (although it could be repeated by a careless printer) in the production process.