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

As the stamps were done by photogravure, I am struggling to know how during that photo-mechanical process the "negative" could have been altered. I believe the process involves exposing the (for want of a better word) I call a negative of the stamp design onto the plate and then repeating the same process until the plate is complete.

Scotzm,

You are very good at explaining the photogravure process..the question is whether all area of image design in the 18c flower stamp is using photogravure technic which include its year as well..if just the design that do use the technic is excluded the year than possibility of error on year still exist there

We need here the answer to whether the each 4 digit number in year could incidentally switched by a mistake by printing operator during the process..if the year is printed separately thereafter then the possibility is still exist that year can be substituted..

And if you do have any of this stamp you can clearly see the year is what I believed to be printed using other separated technic..yes it is still there was commemorative stamp of Britain in the same era its year look as more prone to photogravure..but this 18c flower stamp I'm certain for year it do not used the same photogravure technic as it is inside the frame design..

Hope anyone here can explain..and please stick until I posted a clear cut-lines image of 3 error

Mfie

Scotzm,

What you mentioned the photogravure technic is suitable for this one (as image)??..all image design and year using the same technic..

But the 18p stamp the year look as if using other technic..and most probably printed separately just like the value in stamp..




Mfie

"..and most probably printed separately just like the value in stamp."

This is a possibility. My eyes are not good enough to see any screening on stamps. If printed separately then the error should occur on one in every 200 as the sheet size is 100 stamps in 2 panes of 50 and the cylinder would be double width. The stamps were printed off a reel of paper.

Wow this is the first post I have read through which has given me a headache, unless the whole stamp is shown this whole thing means little.

The two stamp dates are clearly different under a magnifying glass in date!

I fail to see how an 8 can be swapped to a 3 or vice versa.

But until you show the full image of both stamps this post is a waste of time.

Once again, as happens every month or so, we have a "true believer" who refuses to listen to reason and logic.

There is nothing anyone can say which will change this person's mind.

The evidence points towards a piece of paper in that area, making an "8" look like a "3". I can probably find some other stamps with similar issues ... especially the early Australian. The stamp should be kept as a curiosity, but nothing more.

This is the image I sketch on paper with description for now:



no 1) the top-end of the 3 the are clear cut-line. If it was 8, and possibly because of ink-problem there must be no cut-line to the top-point of number

no 2) The same as number one where there is clear cut-line when I see under a magnifier.

No 3) The third middle cut-line that is also clearly shown. If it is incomplete 8 (because of ink-problem) during printing process the cut-line should had not likely to existed at all there.

Hope expert able to commment on this.

Mfie

Partime & Bookbndrbob,

The curiosity arose around me after looking at several hundred pieces. Not only looking onto several tens pieces.

And the error still in question for most here because the image I had posted in the beginning was not so clear. As I said another time shall post a decent image that to show no alter or doctored of 8, no sign that the line of 3 to denote 8, and what is important the 3 is completely an error not just dreams.

Anyway, thanks so much for all who generously give thoughtful comment. I shall consider them all for verifying the stamp status. But for the time being, I still stick to my point that it was an 3 substitute 8 not an inking problem whatsoever.

Please see my earlier reply on how the 3 has been look like with explanation.

Mfie

Tigger,

Now what is short is just a clear decent image. I shall post another clear image when I have best camera. That image shot using just phone camera.

Sorry for inconvenience to you. Hope you can take this easy no need to be stressful.

Regards
Mfie

Mfie,
your stamp can be whatever you want it to be,
you asked for opinions, which were given, no stress there.

If you want it to be recognised as a catalogue error, you need to convince others, than the helpful members on this forum.

I recall 13 years ago, a member posted an obvious error on an Austrian Stamp
(Scott 1125) with a date numeral placed upside down.
It barely raised an eyebrow, I am not aware it has made any Catalogue entry as yet (Michel?)

You can seek advice on any forum, but convincing members of your point of view
may be a little harder

Good luck with your adventure.

Austria
Sc 1129

Rod222

The stamp you shown is so clear there was error at the number...supposed it be number 9 but was upside down..that is one type error of upside down..my error was another type..the switching between number..which I thought personally is more rare when proven.Be patient guy..time is of essence..

Yes Rod it is hard with current tool that I had..no camera that best capture image tiny image as in that you posted above..

I shall try convince next time when I had best camera..dont worry rod..error for tiny number like this need more hard work than usual is inevitably..

Anyway, thanks bro for encourage me..

Mfie

Hi all,

I have lunch break now in one hour..sorry for make you curious for so long..

This time I got a better picture. It is so promising that it was a 3 not 8.. the 8 was substituted by printer.






Do you still not confident guy??..I was so confident that it was an error not an ink problem whatsoever..The picture can tell you everithing that I had said before in long conversation..

Mfie

The top arm of the "3" is beginning to turn in.

I'd vote for a damaged "8" or piece of detritus on the plate.

It is typography? looks like a damage "8" and therefore be consistent on other stamps,
There are sharp edges to the break in my opinion.