These Are Not Proofs ... What Are They?

I recently wrote up a puzzler for a philatelic newsletter I edit. Thought it might be fun to share here.

The stamps shown below are printed in intaglio (steel engraving) on card stock. Many show ink colors different than the issued stamps, but all are original sized. The backs are blank and they are ungummed and uncancelled. What are they? And here is one hint: They are not die proofs.

Possibly engraving and printing company salesman's samples.

Jim

cutouts from souvenir cards?

Yeah that's gotta be it.

This is one of the ones shown above.

Jim



p.s. another one

Partially correct ... any more answers?

This is actually a study in judicious cropping. Indeed, SPQR hit on part of it by suggesting these are cut out of souvenir cards (although I didn't physically cut them out). Most of them are from cards, but the first four are from vignette panels in the American Bank Note Archive Series. From 1987-1992 ABNC produced six different portfolios containing 12 panels each; a different ink color was used every year. The panels typically featured 6 to 10 engravings on a particular theme. Many panels included reprints of stamps from the original plates.







Some of the cropped stamps are also from souvenir cards produced by ABNC, like the first one James posted. The others are from cards printed by the Bureau of Engraving & Printing. Early on, the BEP either used plates with a stamp's denomination removed or, for USPS souvenir cards, they enlarged the stamp design by 150% or more. Later, they began running a "cancellation" line through stamps reprinted in the original size and color. But during the mid-2000s they decided reprinting actual stamp designs in a different color was enough and left off the black lines. The 5¢ 1907 Jamestown reprint (Scott 330) is a surprise, though, as it was printed in blue ink like the original.






So what's the point to all this? Well, it didn't take too long for some shady dealers to begin chopping up these cards and panels and selling the individual engravings as "proofs." As you can see, many of the stamps provide ample margins so that, when carefully cut, they do resemble a die proof. These tend to sell for $10 to $30 apiece and up, which makes the panels especially tempting to cut apart. I've seen the two China "proofs" posted above sell for more than $200 each, and on one occasion more than $300. You can often purchase an entire portfolio (12 panels) for that price.

Probably the most prolific seller of this type of material on ebay is cvcc-inc. If you check his sold listings in the Stamps category you'll see what I mean; they are usually listed as "Mint, Never Hinged" with no other details. It pays to be informed.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/Stamps/260...c-inc&_sac=1

Alex - The field of state revenues has lots of material that came out of the original print shops or were defaced with a manuscript or handstamp "Void" that are termed proofs and specimens by the state revenue collectors. Now that we know the source of your material and that the images were printed from the original designs, what terminology should we apply to these objects?

I would love to hear from other participants on this forum about the terminology that we should use for the items that Alex has shown us. Surely they are not preproduction proofs! But aren't objects printed from the original dies, even for souvenir purposes, still proofs? The Scott Specialized lists some nineteenth century stamps for which there were proofs pulled in the early twentieth century!

You can call me Greg. :-) As to terminology, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing now refers to their souvenir cards as "intaglio prints" -- and I suppose that applies to the ABN Archive series as well. But if something is cut from a souvenir card, it's still just a piece of a souvenir card and should be identified as such.

Interesting in that the seller linked above never actually calls them proofs. He simply uses the term "engraving". The buyers' minds make the logical leap for them.

Well, the problem is that we, as collectors, have allowed it to occur. We complain when we see someone listing something like the cut outs of souvenir cards or engraved printings, but we can't even agree with what to call them.

That's on us. Do you think the seller is any better able to come up with a term to properly describe them?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending those sellers online who are attempting to defraud the public. There certainly are enough of those, but it is not everyone.

I've started a new post to discuss our static terminology and lack of catalog recognition of collateral collectible material in the hopes of starting a conversation.

I look forward to what everyone has to say.

"Do you think the seller is any better able to come up with a term to properly describe them?"

In this case, yes. The seller buys the original items (and I know this because I've unknowingly sold him some) and cuts them up, with the full knowledge of what they are. So they ought to be called "vignette from American Bank Note Archive Series sheet" or "intaglio print from BEP souvenir card." Revenuecollector is correct, he lets the collector make the assumption by omitting details.

I think 'omitting details' is very kind; in my opinion it is a lie of omission. Imagine cheating on your spouse and saying "Sorry, I was only omitting details when I did not tell you the truth".
Don

I vote for "souvenir snippings."

Jim