Britain Commerative Series - Error Year 1937 Instead Of 1987??

Hi guy,

Is this a rare error?? After look at almost 350 pieces stamp in definitive series Britain. The only one which got clear number "3" error instead of number 8 for the year.

Maybe this stamp would be in new scott list if confirmed by all it si clear-cut error. I had never saw any error of year. And I'd scanned close to 350 pieces already but this is the only one appeared to be an error

Please comment guy...



Sorry Guy I cannot now disclose full stamp image for some other reason now..

*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

It was exactly 50 years backdated error of year to the stamp.

FOR YOUR INFO 1937 is during world war..This stamp should be in 19 "8" 7 not 19 "3" 7

:) I hope expert here can give thoughtful comment



Regards
Mfie

Whatever you are showing is really far removed from being an "error". Just a bit of missing ink ... a curiosity. And for your info, World War II started on September 1, 1939.

Jenny2U

I try to think at first it was ink missing..but under proper scan..the shape of the line which set the number 3 is far from being ink missing..

Can see that the end of number 3 have line and the end cut..and the middle of 3 have very clear line and the end cut as well..it is not like number 8 at all..where there are no cut at middle and the internal shadow of 8 is continuous no cut line at all..

Please see clearly Jenny..a glance is not enough..

Sorry but after seen under magnifier it was number 3 not 8..the shape show it all
If you okay I send you email of original image before cropped

Regards
Mfie

I scanned already 350 from the same commemorative stamp..all is exact common number for year eventhough the ink is blurry but still visible and not confused the year..but this one shown is totally unique 3 error and different..

Hope expert can comment here..

Mfie

There's a big difference between a genuine error (eg Queen's head omitted) and a minor oddity. Worth keeping if you like trawling through stamps for this sort of thing (and many on here do), but not likely to spark much collector interest or hold extra value.

Geoff

GeoffHa

When I have a better camera I shall get them here better image..it's not a common oddity for sure..it it replaced with "3" on the 7..

Thanks all for comment..I welcome all your comment..sure shall get better image..even the year on commemorative stamp of Britain is so small but at least the error must be treated as an error..which is apart from just oddity whatsoever..that why stamp hobby is like drug..a small error if error cannot be called just oddity GeoffHa..

Regards
Mfie

Error color omitted I can see all over there any day happen..but error in year switching any numeral even look as small the one I posted above is still very rare I thought..

Another time I will come a handy better pictures to illustrate the real one for you all..maybe because the pics I put above not so clear and look less an error..but it's is error

Mfie

Pointless thread until you identify the stamp.

I can't recall a British stamp having a date in that position, though I only collect British Commemoratives until 1999.

Mike

Hi MFie,

Is this a sideways view of one of the Flower Photographs series issued on 20th January 1987?

It is one of these stamps issued in 1987. Bottom left shows that year date.



It is not possible that a 3 has been substituted as it would appear in a lot of sheets of stamps... and there were a lot of sheets printed. It can only be a doctored stamp or a transient printing flaw. For it to be a variety it must be constant and so far no others have surfaced.

https://goscf.com/t/51298#444087

Instead of getting a very expensive camera it might be worthwhile getting a good scanner.

Nigelc,

Yes you are correct..the flower issued in 1987..for more helpful please see the left stamp of flower denominated 18c posted by scotzm as above..the sun flower..

It cannot be a printing flaw because the 3 switch on 8 is the only found out of 350 of commemorative stamp that I shoot out..

If it was a just flaw..among the 350 pieces there should be any one duplicate..but I cannot found other seem to have flaw..as flaw is easy to happen therefore among the 350 stamp it should be another one..that is what I mean..

Other time when I get opportunity with better camera I shall get the pics here..the image one I shown as above just shot using low-end phone camera..that why we cannot see clearly the line of the number 3 substitute..there are cut-lines of 3 there..whereby if 8 no cut-lines and the shade is continuous within the number..

Regards
Mfie

Mfie,
It is not an error. To be a actual error it would mean that the 3 and the 8 had actually been switched during the printing process. If this had happened, there would be other reports of this from other people. More importantly, it is VERY obvious that an incomplete 8 looks exactly like a 3. This is simply a case of missing ink.

To be considered an actual, constant error you will have to prove that it is not simply inking issue. Until then, no one will agree with you that this should be considered an 'error'.
Don

Mike,

You see the stamp is one of flower stamp that scotzm put above..

It is the sun flower..left stamp

Scotzm..

I cannot agree with you that a variety like the substitute 3 error must be constant-type..because the labour work for printing must have noticed wisely and the quality control inspector must also noticed if the error involve year after a while..it is serious error to be there..maybe the error only appeared in several few sheet of stamp until it was spoted during quality inspection..that why it cannot be constant or a massive error..

And in stamp what I know..any rare error is hard to come by even on mass quantity because the attribute of rarity there..that why scotzm it just not a constant type for searching..its a very rare occurrence..

Studebaker..I shall paste a clear picture when I get better camera..

Mfie

Studebaker,

The 3 switching error as I believed now is so small to see clearly with naked eyes..

You said that it must be told earlier by people if it was an error..let say you are a printer worker there who work in the printing process..if you happen to notice there was a 3 error substitute on 8 but it was so small that anyone out there cannot bother with the tiny number error..do you want to disclose the error in public?? I assume that you just let it go into stamp market since public shall not able to spot the error by just simple look at it..that why I opiniated that it not be publicised before..and it until now remain as silence error..

Meanwhile, when I get clear image I shall make sure you can see in the image the cut-line of number 3..it not 8 for sure

Mfie