Venezuela Escuelas, Imperforate

Yet another oddity floating around in my "what on earth is this?" file (an unfortunately large file...):



I *think* this sad torn stamp is Scott #79 (1882-88), but it's imperforate. Imperforates are mentioned following the 1887-88 issue, but those were "from a new die with 'ESCUELAS' in smaller letters." I don't have anything to compare this stamp to, but the lettering looks to be the same size as should have been from die I.

And if it's the later issue, what do they mean by "so-called imperforate varieties"? Would they not have been valid for use?

May be cut from an envelope?

Hi Polimon

According to Blanco specialized Venezuela catalog it seems that the stamp is:

Issued - 1887-1888
Lithographed
Rouletted    Blanco 47, Yvert 44A, Scott 96
Imperforate  Blanco 47a

Other values are:

25c yellow orange  Blanco 48, Yvert 45, Scott 97
50c blue                Blanco 49, Yvert 46, Scott 98
3b violet                Blanco 50, Yvert 47, Scott 99

All issues exist imperforated.

Note that this may be printer's waste.

Jerry B

Thank you both very much! Timm, an envelope was pretty much my only other thought.

Jerry, I really am glad somebody had a Venezuela Specialized! (This is such an awesome community!) I guess that must be what it is then... which means I am definitely *not* going to worry that the corner detached.

One more mystery put to bed - yay! :)

The texture and color of the paper appears to be more like envelope paper than postage stamp paper.

Timm, in combination with what looks like the edge of some handwriting in the lower right corner on the back, I think that's a real possibility -- although I'm not sure I understand writing on the inside surface of an envelope...?

That bit of writing made me wonder about postcard, but it's not nearly stiff enough I don't think. Texture-wise, I'd describe it as almost soft-cottony. Kind of like a thinnish rag paper.

Googling aggressively (ain't technology great?), I came across an entry in the 1881 "Stamp Collectors Annual" describing various recent postal issues... including "envelope stamps" for Venezuela. #88, issued 1880, is maybe a possibility?

https://books.google.com/books?id=l...elas&f=false

OK, this topic went dormant a while back, but I've found I have my own version of this stamp. It was suggested it might be cut from an envelope - but surely a printed stamp would be in the top right corner and not the left, as this appears to be. There is no watermark that I can see, so....?

What makes you think it is from the left as opposed to the right? It very easily looks as if it could have come from the right side; it appears trimmed from the original piece on both sides.

Why? Because if it was from the right-hand side you would have no reason to trim it in such a way - the corner of the envelope would already provide a suitable frame. Also my apologies for the photo which I took on my phone so which might have been at a slight angle. This new pic was on my scanner, and to me, if anything, shows it might have come from the bottom left of a sheet because of the right angle. More thoughts...?

Well, regardless of where it was cut, it is most likely printers waste of Scott #96. I'm in my office at work, so I don't have a newer catalog with me, but my 1985 Scott catalog has this note: "The so-called imperforate varieties of Nos. 92 to 99, and the pin perforated 50c dark blue, type A19, are believed to be from printer's waste."

Hope that helps,

Eric

The paper would appear to favor postal stationary.

Eric and Rog, thank you for your comments - South America isn't my forte and I don't have catalogues (catalogs??)for that area. I guess I'll just leave that example in limbo, then.

Rod, thanks for those pictures, they explain a lot. One last thing though, before I leave the topic - do you have pictures of the reverse side (to see if the paper is at all similar to my example) and also, was the paper watermarked in any way?

I'll dig out my albums for a bo-peep
my initial opinion is yours are printers waste.
Absolutely no in depth knowledge on these though.
Stand by

Printer's waste appears to have been common
Scott #91 Perf 14 (High CV) was believed manufactured from Printer's waste of Scott #96

From where I am sitting, NO watermarked paper was used prior to 1962
Needs confirmation

When everything else fails, read the catalogue.......

Scott
"The so called imperforate varieties of Scott 92-96
are believed to be made from printer's waste"

Looking at the colour of your example it is grey green (Scott #92)

Scott #87 #96
Paper with full gum, and soaked (with thins)
Caused by hinging too close to the edge