Possible Tag Error On 2300 And 2303

Hi everyone.

I would like to have your opinion on those stamps. I was searching through 4-5000 current stamps I gathered here and there for the last 5-6 years. I was not hoping for much, but thought I could find TAG error or even maybe a fake stamp. This is when I found these:

2300:

2303:


** The pictures were taken from a camera with a 1 second exposition time to gather as much reflected light as possible to detect residual spec of tagging, if any. It seems to show a really tiny amount of tagging on the first 2300 where there should be the maple leaf and on the lower left corner. This residual tag, if this is in fact tagging, does not show with normal exposition to UV light. You ca see here that it is very light.

I included a normal tagged stamp as reference to show how it should be. I will try to document the observations I have made.

I will begin by displaying a normal scan of the stamps. I will comment on them later. Here they are:

2300:


2303:


I was asking myself what could be the cause and here are the possibilities that I came up with:

Fake stamp

Stamps were rubbed together or to something else

Occurred during soaking

Exposition to sunlight

And last, occurred at printing

Let's take each of these cases:

** I mostly display picture of the 2303, but the 2300 stamps display pretty much the same characteristics. Other pictures can be added if asked for.

Fake stamps: Since they are partly tagged, I ruled out the possibility of them being FAKES. As far as I know, fakes are never tagged... but yet again I don't have much information on them. I also looked at the micro-printing on the stamps and they are still readable (even if in the case of the 2303, it is less readable because of "rubbing" or under ink printing). Here is a picture (from 2303):

We can still see the letters even if not much readable. I think that fake ones are even harder to read than that because the printing is not precise enough.

Stamps were rubbed together or to something else: Well, it could happen... But I don't think this is the case here. First because if that was the case, I would expect to see streak of tagging on the stamps. Instead of that, the tagging cut is pretty neat. Second, I looked at some of the parts that seems to have been rubbed and I don't see it consistent with damage. It is look more of under ink printing. Here are some pictures:

Tag clean cut on the 2303:


Olympic logo on the 2303; Really look under ink:



Occurred during soaking: I never let a stamp soak longer that it should... so I don't think that this is it. Unfortunately I did not check them before I soaked them. But I can say that there were many other of the same stamps that were soaked at the same time and they don't show any sign of missing tag.

Exposition to sunlight: This is also a possibility... Exposition to sunlight can change color, but I never heart of it removing the tag of a stamp. It is true that some of the stamps shown here show sign of lighter colors that the normal ones... So there could be a little of that too. But I don't think that this is what affected the tag.

And last, occurred at printing: Unless nothing else could explain the reason for the missing tag, the only remaining possibility is that it occurred at printing. If it is the case, my guess is under inking of the stamps (at least for the 2303) and of the tag. I am guessing here that the tag is in fact applied like ink on these stamps.

So here are my observations. I would really welcome your comments and opinions on these.

Thanks.

I have collected tagged stamps and their varieties for quite some time now. And even though I do not collect Canadian stamps I believe strongly that you have found some legitimate tagging varieties.

Peter

Like Peter, I was also a pretty avid collector of tagging varieties/EFOs -- primarily for US stamps.

Tagging drop-outs do occur, for various reasons. However, checking for tagging drop-outs on used stamps is a very very "iffy" thing. I would say that 90+% of tagging drop-outs on used stamps were caused AFTER production. In other words, because of mail handling, exposure, soaking...

My focus was not on Canadian stamps, so I lack the expertise here. But, just looking at the three #2300 stamps which appeared to have been photographed together, the degree of lack of tagging area seems to correlate to the "lightness" of the ink on the stamp. That suggests to me that this is a (tagging) changeling. Whatever was taking off the taggant also affected the ink. If you have a filtered long-wavelength UV lamp (e.g., centered around 365nm), I suspect you will see the paper of all 3 stamps also glow differently.

I see the same issue with the two 2303 stamps as well.

There are definitely tagging drop-outs to be found. But it's a lot easier to prove on mint stamps.

I do have a question on your tagging pics. Why are there 4-5 white quadrilaterals on some of the stamps? They are well-positioned, but I don't see anything in the stamp design or the cancel that would seem to correspond to them...

k

khj,

You are speaking of these?


They are in fact "Maple Leaf" that are part of the tagging. There is no design under the tag. They don't appear as maple leaf shape because, as I said, I took a picture with a still camera and gathered 1 second worth of reflected light to try to detect remaining spec of tagging. There is why the gag appear very bright. So there is so much light that the leaf shape was lost.

You say that you think that these are changeling. I was asking myself if it were possible... As stated in my earlier post, I don't think that this is rubbing nor sunlight exposure. I guess it could be chemical exposure of some sort. There is also the fact of the tag being cut neatly... It raise questions about what could have caused this.

What would be your suggestion?

OK, thanks for explaining. I see the listing and info regarding the maple leaf tagging in Unitrade.

I don't actively collect modern stamps other than what happens to fall into my lap. So I don't have a mint/used stamp for me to examine directly. Someone who actively collects Canada will need to chime in.

Your used stamps that have taggant loss are clearly faded (just compare the inking and even the cancel). Depending on the type of tagging, the tagging can come off very easily or with great difficulty (if taggant is embedded).

Some tagging compounds that are applied after the stamp is printed do sometimes come off on US stamps. I've even had it come off on my fingertips (yes, my fingertips glowed, and that's how I noticed). That is why Scott does not list prices for tagging omitted errors on used stamps. This usually does not happen for tagging of the past 40 years.

If you have a dual wavelength UV lamp, hit the stamps with the filtered long wavelength light and see if the paper is different. If different, then almost certainly post-production damage/alteration of the stamp.

I am not familiar with the taggant used on Canadian stamps, and whether on this stamp it was applied before/after. But based on the ink loss, I'm pretty sure something happened to those couple of stamps sometime between printing and then into getting into your hands.

That being said, it is possible for taggant drop-outs, even on pre-phosphored paper.

khj, I have separate long and short wave UV lamp. I am not sure what exactly I am supposed to see, but here is a picture of the stamps under short waves UV:




The second picture has a little more light to it... I must have exposed it a little more...

Well, I have continue my search in my stock pile of some 4-5000 stamps. I may have search through 5-600 other stamps and I have found something like 15 other stamps that were showing the same symptoms as the stamps I described in earlier posts of this thread. The new specimens are at different "stages" of missing tag, going from "sparse missing tag" to "almost no tagging" with also different "worn" effect on the design itself.

So, in light of this new information, I think that the odds of having this kind of phenomena produced at printing are extremely slim. I have here found 19 stamps on 1600 stamps, that is 1.19% of the stamps I examined. If we were to apply these odds on the total population of stamp, it would be an enormous quantities of tagging problem on common stamps. I know that this is impossible odds.

I have come to the conclusion that this "missing tag" problem then comes from the fact that the stamps were stored into plastic bags for long times and that occasional manipulations of the bags were responsible for the rubbing of the stamps together (probably even stamps on the paper of other stamps "on paper"; This paper might be a little more rough) and this lead to the missing tagging effect that I reported here. I then must view them as damaged stamps and they will probably be discarded as such. It will be like this unless anyone could bring more evidence... but I don't think that it will happen.

Thanks to everyone that brought comments and opinions.