Wine Revenue

Some months ago there was a discussion about a newly discovered variety of the $1.44 wine stamp that had been certified by the PF. Several people had theories about overinking and disparaged the conclusions of the PF committee that certified it as a new variety. Those collectors might be interested in lot 831 of Siegel auction 1111. It is a block of 15 which includes one example of this new variety surrounded by normal examples. I guess it wasn't simply an overinked stamp after all.

I stand by my original assertation.

This block also confirms visual evidence that the line containing the so-called "larger" font is exactly the same length as the same line on the other examples in the block.

If the font was indeed "larger" the line would be longer than the same line of the "smaller" font. This is a given. The argument was also made that it could be a condensed version of a larger font, but if that were the case, the O's would be oval and not round.

As I have stated before, the font is a "bold" version of the original. This accounts for the similar size. The letters are thicker and taller than the normal ones but occupy the same horizontal space. The spaces between the letters are correspondingly smaller. You are allowing "larger" to automatically mean "wider", which does not have to be true.
Think of perforations, all are measured in 20mm, but the size of the holes and the amount of paper left are different for the various gauges.

The "bold" version would also make the line longer in width.

Given all the discrepancies that exist on this issue, and the squeezed numerals that exist on the $1.60 4/5 stamps, there is no guarantee that the bold setting would be any larger than the normal. All it would take is a problem with that line on that position that caused it to be replaced, and someone made a mistake.
Given that the three-L variety which is a common and obvious error, and there are 5 other varieties on that value alone means that at times no one was paying a whole lot of attention when plates were being created.
If you choose not to believe it is real, so be it. No one is forcing you to buy one.

Thats the great thing about published discoveries, they often cause other collectors to go back and look at their holdings.Sometimes they even discover something great they may have overlooked for years. Happy hunting.

Whatever this is (and I tend to side with the over inking hypothesis advanced by Tom Harpole, a printer by trade, and Dave Nussmann, the author of the article in the American Revenuer on the $1.60 4/5), it clearly did not occur for the reasons that we have with the $1.60 4/5 denomination. The $1.60 4/5 varieties occurred because of font differences in the 1952-54 time period. There is no evidence that such fonts were even available in 1947 or earlier, roughly the date when the differences noted on the $1.44 occurred.

Ron Lesher

I would like to know how one specific line out of an entire plate got overinked multiple times and still wound up as identical overprints with clearly defined letters. That seems to me to be well beyond the realm of probability since overinking by nature would be random and sloppy.
A few of the other stamps on this multiple do show the typical results of slight overinking, which are tiny smudges under the letters, which are certainly random (and sloppy).

Actually there are two scenarios that can cause this.

When I worked at a local newspaper which was printed letterpress, when we ran classified ads we would run the same ads over and over again. These lines of type over time became darker and darker as they became more and more worn due to the softness of the lead. Any newly set classified ads looked like a lighter, smaller, less bold font.

Another issue which would come up is that if one particular line of type was higher than the rest, it would obviously print darker. This is due to the type not being tamped down caused by possibly a sliver of lead underneath the line as the chase was being imposed. This happened very frequently.

It was not uncommon for some lines of type to be darker than others in the same imposition.

IMO these stamps are simply oddities and not true errors. Somebody will obviously value them as errors, but personally I would not. Just my opinion.

It's also worth noting it appears this block of 15 doesn't have a PF certificate. It would be interesting to see what the opinion would be on this piece.

The black was printed by offset lithography, not letterpress.

According to Bidwell the denominations were printed from electrotype plates (so letterpress) not offset. The citation in the U.S. Specialized on offset is for the stamps whose denominations were less than a dollar. So from that one cannot dismiss Tom Harpole's insights from his experience of printing.

From all this discussion I have concluded that the Foundation's opinion is based on erroneous assumptions.

Ron Lesher

While it is true that I misread Bidwell when I looked again this morning, you would have to talk to BB to get his take on his reasoning. He took the lead here. I will need more than I have read here to think it a mistake, but I will look into that article.

Ron, do you have the date of that article?

Check The American Revenuer, Third Quarter 2011, page 58 for Nussmann's analysis of the Series of 1941 wine stamp $1.60 4/5 denomination. A careful reading of that article pretty well debunks that the $1.44 freak (I don't think that it is a plate variety) did not occur with different font type in the same way that the $1.60 4/5 two line variety did. Nussmann also demonstrates that they returned to the smaller font late in the production in 1954.

Thanks Ron. There is no question that the $1.44 is a different type of mistake then the $1.60 4/5. As I stated before, we felt that it occurred because of a bold line inadvertently entered.