Plate 1e 3c 1851 On Thin Paper

I thought it was apropos considering some of the recent discussions to post this new acquisition. How should this stamp be examined? I believe it was submitted as a stamp on part India paper. All comments, questions, and observations are welcomed.

sinclair2010, Beautiful stamp! My OB/yellowish on part India paper was confirmed by the expertizer with the help of a micrometer to measure the paper thickness.

Not by PSE.

Question: When one sees 'thin paper' on a certificate, is that synonymous with 'part India'? if the type of paper can be indentified, shouldn't that be listed? This is just my opinion and I would like to hear someone else speak to this, but shouldn't the certificates be more specific rather than general? ESPECIALLY when it comes to plating as I would love to see plate position noted as being confirmed as well.

I remember these Part India's well. It seemed like whenever I'd see Bill Amonette, he'd have his micrometer and some part India candidates. I always watched over his shoulder. Interesting stuff, but I finally decided to draw the line at (not) buying a micrometer, in order to fully study different paper thicknesses.

Since I never studied these in depth, I'll try to stimulate discussion by asking a few questions about what fragment I may remember...

I seem to recall that these were always 1851, and always from Plate 1-early. Is that correct?

I wonder if the paper was a left-over, from a proof printing run prior to an early stage run of the 3c stamp. Proofs are often printed on India paper.

There are two different varieties of thin paper that are accepted by most. I happen to use the term loosely because I am not so sure that there should be two different varieties. The two are part India paper and thin but not part India. The PSE cert should have explicitly called it the latter since that is what I believe they meant. The plating notation on the back is Chase's and supposedly the plating was confirmed by lets just say, a competent plater. I actually haven't checked it against my photos but I have absolutely no reason to believe it is wrong and even less reason to believe that it not a Plate 1E stamp. It would not be a bad idea to put the plating on the cert but not an absolute requirement.

So, thin paper is not synonymous with part India so long as you believe there are two different types. Bill Amonette certainly believed there were two because I have an example of each that were written up by him.

So far nobody has commented on the part India notation on the back of the which I believe is written in Ashbrook's hand.

The thin paper stamps (both varieties) that we are talking about here only come from the 3c Plate 1E or some early 12c 1851 printings. I have seen one example of an #11 on thin paper and I think it had a PF cert. I stupidly didn't buy it but I may have been disappointed in the end anyway. I will believe one exists when I have it in my hands.

I have a micrometer that measures to the one thousandth of an inch and can estimate to one ten thousandth. I also have a Pentax monocular with reticle that allows me to measure down to the tenth of a millimeter and easily estimate hundredths

I don't know how or why the thin paper stamps came to exist. It is odd that they were printed very early but didn't enter circulation until late summer-early fall.

Any thoughts as to why the thin-paper variety exists for the 3-cent and 12-cent 1851s but apparently not for the 1-cent?

Maybe that paper was left-over from a proof run...and/or ...

If not a proof run leftover, then maybe they thought at first, that they would use that paper, and they tried it on their first runs. Possibly they did a printing run of the 3c (Pl 1e) and 12c plate (1), around the same time, and that was the paper they had for both. Maybe they decided that it was inappropriate for regular-issue stamps, being too thin and fragile. By the time they got around to the 1c stamp, they had a different paper supply.

One wonders if that could mean that they printed the 3c and 12c stamps prior to printing any 1c stamps.

Good question, txstamp. A superficial look through the Travers Papers and the Hulme Research Documents at uspcs.org does not indicate so (in fact, delivery of 1c plate proofs seems to have occurred first), but perhaps the answer resides in a deep dive into this material.

I think speculation me be the best we can do. Between the 3c and 12c stamps, there is a fairly considerable population which of course implies that many more than that were printed. I think that rules out proof runs. I have thought a paper trial may be the most likely scenario.

I think this thread has pretty much run it's course so will now fill in the gaps.

I bought this stamp about four weeks ago because the 3c thin-but-not-part-India stamps are actually quite rare, provided you believe they are indeed a different paper than the part India. Besides, $150 is a good buy for a part India stamp anyway. So, the stamp arrived and guess what? It is a normal paper stamp with a somewhat deceiving appearance. It gauges exactly as you would expect a normal paper stamp to gauge. Ashbrook was wrong, the dealer (a PSE exec) was wrong, the PSE is wrong, along with the experts they call on. It isn't hard to get it right - it starts with a micrometer and actually knowing what normal paper thickness is. The rest is experience.

The dealer would take it back and likely resell it to somebody that wouldn't have a clue that he was being ripped off. Apparently PSE and their experts don't care to get it right. My offer of help to the dealer (a PSE exec) was ignored. A sad state of affairs...

Sinclair: Thank you for your comments and the explanation. We are often told by various sources to get certain things 'certified' to validate or authenticate. Thus, it's concerning that we can not, necessarily, trust or rely on the findings by the certifying company. I find it a rather disturbing dilemma. If one can't depend on an expertization company to get it right, where does one turn for the correct information and/or determination? We can't all be experts in everything so the certification companies were to be a source of confidence due to our ignorance. So, what now? Where does one turn? Thanks for the all of the information and the assistance you provide.

Thanks for this thread Winston.

signed
humble student.

txstamp makes a most excellent observation, no thin paper 1c stamps have ever been found. After researching all available documentation (Travers Papers, etc.), I found no answer to this question. Therefore, the following are current theory:

Theory #1: Initial printings of the 1851 Issue used the same paper as the final 1850 printing of the 1847 Issue. At the time, there were difficulties in laying-out the 1-cent plate, and this must have delayed its entry into production. By the time the 1-cent plate became available, the printers had moved on to another paper stock.

Theory #2: From the Travers' papers it is learned that TCC&Co. at first tried switching to an inexpensive machine-made paper, but this became a horrible failure. As a result, it is reported that all stocks of 1-cent stamps were destroyed at that time. So, it's possible that sheets of the early thin paper 1-cent stamps may have been incidentally destroyed along with the rest.