Reverse Print On Reverse!

hi jimjamtwo,

well at the end I think you found your answer yourself :). But still it would be interesting for both of us to learn if the so called "offset" I mentioned above (in comparison to the setoff) is something that really happened. Then you and I would know if a reversed print on the back could have happened or not. But I guess this is such a special question that hardly people know about it, even here at SCF.

Hello,

Let an ancient typography printer give you the good answer. This postage stamp was printed by typography on a flat bed printing press, sheet after sheet. The printing typographic press turn once without sheet and the print is done on the pression cylinder and when the next sheet is printed, the print is done at the same place on the both sides, by transfert on the back side.

By example this french postage stamp :



Typographic ink never pass through the paper like it is shown above.
It is like offset and not setoff, but I agree with Stamperix for the definition he mentionned.

Papy24

Salut Papy et merci.

It was a pleasure to read your explanation. I am not a printing expert, so I don't know if I transfer your explanation to my stamp example. That's why I show you and the others some more photos.

There is this 1 Dollar Franklin where I found now 4 examples with printed on back (very detailed printing, not only some better spots, also one stamp shows a "white space" without ink). Also, see the real difference between the 4 stamps and another one which shows setoff. The 4 stamps show something different from setoff in my eyes. Could you agree that these 4 stamps show the printing "error" explained as "offset" above?

I really wonder why this error is not explained somewhere and not mentioned in Scott. I know that this is nothing rare, but still odd. Especially I didn't find anything like this on any other Franklins of this issue. So this should be something happened only to the 1 Dollar stamp in a certain printing curriculum.

Coincidentally, I was looking at this GB QV offset in an auction list earlier. Along the lines of Papy's example

http://www.warwickandwarwick.com/au...logue/158628

Hello - yes nice! Yours and Pappy's example seem to be "real printed on back", although also reverse design. My stamps appear a bit less dark. Could all of these examples be result of the mentioned "offset"?

Today I found two more 1 Dollar Franklin with printed on back. In hundreds of other Franklins of this issue I didn't find any example like this. So for me it's still not clear why this is only happening to the 1 Dollar stamp. And of course, if this is result of "offset" rather than "setoff". Perhaps there are some W-F and printing experts who know it.

Stamperix,
They are not 'printed on back'; as previously mentioned this term is used to describe a true error when a pane of stamps is reinserted into the press and actually printed on back. 'Printed on back' design will always be orientated exactly like the front design.

There is confusion with the terms setoff and offset but they both mean that ink/design has been transferred to the back of a stamp through some other means. On flat plate stamp this is almost always due to the stacking of the panes coming off the press with the ink still wet/damp. I would assume that the $1 dollar stamp shows this more than other issues due to the nature of the brown ink, perhaps taking it longer to dry than the other inks.

Setoff/offset is also not considered an error, it is a considered normal production occurrence. Stamps which show a reversed design image on back are considered curiosities.

Catalogs like Scott use the term 'printed on back' to note true error stamps, these stamps carry a significant increase in value. So it is important to understand this term and not apply it to setoff stamps. (There are ebay listings which incorrectly use this term for setoff stamps. It could be that some are intentionally using 'printed on back' term to entice unknowing buyers into thinking that are buying a more expensive error stamp.)
Don

Edit; I understand the process that Papy24 described and it makes sense. But at least here in America, and the thread is about W/F stamps, the term 'printed on back' would not apply to a stamp with a reversed design. Note that the link that GeoffHa posted does not call the stamp 'printed on back'.

Hi Don,

yes, for sure you're right, that these 1 Dollar Franklins are not "printed on back". And as said I understand that they are not rare and so they won't appear in the Scott as a variety. Still, they are not "setoff" either - at least in my eyes there are differences to the setoffs I know. Also, in hundreds and hundreds of those Franklins I never saw anything even close to this, only at the 1 Dollar.

So I still wonder if this could be the mentioned "offset" (in opposite to setoff) with the cylinder ink. And I wonder why I don't find anything about this, or if other people know this kind of "offset on the back" I found so often - others must know it?

Great examples friends!!.

Great Britain - Queen Victoria
Die Proof No.27 - embossed 6p
Offset





Regards!
Rodolfo

Hello,

Stamperix, your stamps are offset on the back, but the last is setoff.
When a print is done on the pression cylinder, the following sheet is printed on the right side and by offset on the back. The following sheets are printed and the back is less and less inked.
When a print is done with too many ink, the sheet above is setoff but it is not the same aspect like offset.

I agree with 51studebaker, these stamps are not printed on the back.

Papy24