Admiral Two Cents Variety

Coinwatcher,

On the second stamp the big red dot pointed out by the arrow has an outline drawn around it seemingly. Can you show the second stamp without the arrow or any added stuff please?

woodstamp,

Your second stamp has the same Type O2 characteristics as your first so, like the first, I believe it comes from plate 6, 7, or 8.

I have not seen the large dot variety before. Like COINWATCHER, I think it is a guide dot.

To determine the position of the transfer roll for each subject on the plate, the siderographer scribes a set of horizontal and vertical lines on the plate. These lines are usually burnished off the plate when no longer required, but occasionally they are visible on stamps. The siderographer punches a hole at the intersection of the lines. This produces the guide dots used to position the transfer roll.

Assuming your large dot is indeed a guide dot, the siderographer must have hit the punch with excessive force to produce this particular hole.

Puzzler,
Here is picture without the arrow.
AdmCol, Thank you for your detail explanation.

What's this variety? Re-entry or constant plate flaw?

Congratulations, woodstamp. You've found a nice re-entry.

The stamp is from the original die. Based on an examination of the plate proofs at Library and Archives Canada, I believe the position is 15UL32 (plate 15, upper left pane, stamp 32 - row 4, column 2). Besides the obvious markings in AGE, the outer oval has a marking that begins opposite the end of the E and there is a mark in the bottom right of the C in CANADA. The re-entry is not listed in Marler's 1982 book.

Ralph Trimble has a copy of this re-entry on his website. See item 48 on the page at the following URL:

http://www.re-entries.com/admirals2-carmine2.html

Wow, very nice find, congrats! Woodstamp yours is in much better condition than Ralph's. Anymore?

AdmCol: I checked the website, it seems item 48 doesn't mark the plate position. I'll send my high resolution picture to Ralph. I think he will enjoy the information.


COINWATCHER: yes, I have more stamps didn't go through them all. I
just found another re-entry today. Check the following picture.

Another re-entry.

I think on this stamp the upper arrow shows a reentry into the inner white circle.

The lower arrow does not show an engraving (red ink) reentry. The white may be under-inking or rubbing off of red ink over the years?

Look at the back of this re-entry. I found it is different with the others. I suspect it has stitch-watermark with it. Could someone help me to figure it out?

I tend to agree with Puzzler, but would go so far as to say that neither is a re-entry. Difficult to be sure without the stamp itself.

The paper looks like regular wove paper, no stitch watermark IMHO

3Dadeo: thanks to check this stamp. I agree with you it might not be a stitch-watermark. Also I agree with you this stamp cann't be a major re-entry. However it is definitely one re-entry. I would call it strong or sharp re-entry. Check the clear double figure in the following picture.

woodstamp,

Regarding your second re-entry (the one with the bottom of the right numeral box doubled), I believe the stamp is Marler's Type O2. Type O2 comes on plates 4, 6, 7, and 8. Your stamp isn't from plate 4 (no hairline cracks), but it could come from one of the other three. I don't know the position, but I believe Ralph Trimble has posted an example of this re-entry on his web site. See item 65 at:

http://www.re-entries.com/admirals2-carmine3.html

Does your stamp show thickening or doubling of the vertical line of the left numeral box?

Regarding the most recent stamp you posted (the one with the upper right frame junction line doubled near GE in POSTAGE and the oddly shaped right frame below the middle of the stamp design), I have not seen this before and do not know the stamp position. I believe it is from a plate from the original die. The upper right vertical line of the spandrel is retouched from the top down to the middle of the crown. The doubling of the upper right frame junction line may also be a retouch. I think the strong line in the right frame (where you've put the lower green arrow) is also a retouch.

As you've noted, the paper displays an obvious pattern on the back, probably produced by the mesh belt the pulp was lying on as the water was removed to form the paper. A stitch watermark consists on a bunch of more or less parallel lines caused by the stitching of the two ends of the belt together to form an endless belt. As I recall, there was at least one thread on stitch watermarks last year (by the way, that wasn't intended as a pun) in which examples were posted. Stitch watermarks are found on some early Admiral stamps, but they occur more often on earlier issues.

Thanks for the close up woodstamp. Much easier to give an opinion. I'm thinking re-touch, not re-entry (as AdmCol notes). The reason being that there is only that one place with the doubling. The retouch slipped and became an "engraver's slip". The same engraver may have also tried to strengthen the right frame-line - wasn't having a good day.
Have seen bad retouches on Admiral stamps, perhaps this is one of the worst.

AdmCol:Yes, the second stamp has slightly doubling of the vertical line of the left numeral box.

Please check the picture:




My question is: about the last stamp, the upper arrow I marked the doubling, is it a re-entry?