Dies Of #319 Different From Types 1 & 2??

I found an old article from "Stamps" dated March 8, 1941, by Paul Purington. It identifies and illustrates 2 possible die varieties involving the absence and presence of outlines on the left side of the right lower star and right upper side of the vignette frame. These varieties appear to be different from the well-known Types illustrated in Scott's, which focus on differences in the lower left frame. I checked my collection and found only 1 example of the "earlier" die type (non-outlined star), on a Type 2 booklet pane pair. My question is, has this supposed die variety been explored / explained further? Has anyone ever verified that it is actually a real die or plate difference?

Scott descriptions are notoriously incomplete.

greenscatalog:
very interesting, could you perhaps show the images of the article to see how these differences look?

cfrphoto:
so Purington was right and this should be included in Scott? But isn't it, as greenscatalog writes, contradictory to Scott, so Scott is not incomplete but wrong? Have there been other articles or studies about these two different approaches and how they could match?

greenscatalog, interesting thread. I need to look at all of mine for this.
I'm not knocking Scotts as I use the catalog but I've noticed from other threads here that Scotts misses or doesn't explain details, incomplete and sometimes just wrong. But you hear a lot of people suggest Scotts.
So, why is Scotts considered the Holy Grail of stamp books?

The October 1991 Bureau Specialist article "The 1903 2¢ Washington on Shield, Type I and Type II" By ROGER S. BRODY is the most complete and useful article describing the five differences between the type I and type II dies. The two major identifiers are listed in the Scott catalog. Three additional minor identifiers are not described by Scott and may not always be present. The Scott catalog is sufficient for identification unless both major identifiers are obscured.



It would take some time an a good scanner to produce color images of the quality found for the Washington/Franklin Issue to expand the "Types of the 2¢ Washington of 1903 - US 319" on Stamp Smarter:

http://www.stampsmarter.com/1847usa/1902/319.html



Additional information from Brody:

"Norbert J. Eich, while studying plate varieties of the stamp, noticed a constant difference between the early and late printings. Eich's review of Bureau records confirmed the use of a second die. His findings were first reported in the June 1937 issue of The Bureau Specialist."

"The Five Identifiers It is the author's opinion, having studied die proofs privately held as well as those in the Smithsonian's National Philatelic Collection, that only five differences exist.

Brazer's observations of the recut right vertical margin enclosing the oak leaf is incorrect. Die proof copies show that the oak leaf is enclosed within a fine outline on both the Type I and Type II varieties. Production printed stamps often do not exhibit this line on either of the two die varieties. This apparently results from insufficient impression from transfer roll to plate (observed to occur randomly on plate proofs) as well as ink starvation during the printing.

Thus, of the five distinct differences between the dies. two result from the omission of lines worn on the original die and not recut on the new die and three result from the addition of recut and enhanced lines.

The distinction between the worn and recut lines is important for accurate identification. Transfer rolls unable to reproduce Type I lines which had worn (flattened) over time produced stamps that appear, like all Type II stamps, without these lines. By definition, stamps which do show these lines must be Type I. The recut lines on Type II stamps, for reasons described earlier, may not show clearly and these stamps may appear to be Type I. Once again, by definition, stamps which show the recut lines must be Type II.

It should also be noted that, while the shading lines Eich observed above the T on the die proofs do appear to have been recut, it is virtually impossible to consistently detect the difference on production copies.

Usually no more than two or three identifiers are discernible, even with strong magnification. The suggested order of comparison illustrated in Figure 3 adopts the convention described by Brett6 categorizing the differences as major or minor (Figure 5).

Major Differences

These two differences usually are quite clear and distinct between the die types:

1. The inner-frame line at the lower left corner.
2. The left-side border line at the lower laurel leaf.

Minor Differences

These three are definite differences, but they are not always clear, as in the case of worn subjects, light lines or heavy lines in close proximity.

3. The left-side ribbon shading line.
4. The shading line left of the P in POSTAGE.
5. The background lines above the left tip of the T in TWO.

It would be useful if the five identifiers were described in current catalogs. At the very least, illustrating both major identifiers would greatly assist collectors in distinguishing between the two types."

thank you for this information. especially the difference between worn and recut lines is helpful.
so if we come back to the beginning of this thread: the things that Purington saw in 1941 (4 years after Eich's report) are only plate varieties and not die differences?

(by the way all 5 type identifiers are explained and shown quite well in my Scott specialized 2013)

I was buried by work today, tomorrow I will try to upload pics of Purington's die varieties from the original article, they will be easier to understand than my explanations. Neither of his varieties duplicate Brody's, and at first blush they appear to vary independently of Types 1 and 2 (?), although I do not have enough copies of the stamp to be sure.

So here is the image from Purington's original article:



The tentative conclusion reached by the author is that these differences represent plate varieties, not different dies or a worn plate -- however, the discussion is brief, and I'm not sure whether Fig. 2 applies to the known Die 1 or Die 2. Purington says "On Die 2 the lines in question were not so deep as in Die 1. The conclusion we reached was that the variations occur as a result of there having been a series of plates produced by light instead of heavy transfer, and this is a plate variety, rather than a new die or worn plate." By my read, then, we should find the variety shown in Fig. 1 only on Type 2 (Die 2) stamps. Attached below is a pic of my Type 2 booklet pane pair, which appears to be the type shown in Fig. 2 above:



I will load a microphoto of the lower right star shortly. -- S

Ok, here are the close-ups of what I think are the 2 varieties illustrated by Purington. The first is my Type 2 boklet pair, right stamp, lower left star area (I think this conforms to Fig. 1 in Purington's article; note that the lines intersect the left side of the star directly):



... and here is what happens to be a 319 Type 1 with an outline on the left side of the star etc. as described by Purington's Fig. 2:



(Ignore the extraneous dot in the star.)

Oops, the first line in my last post should have said "lower RIGHT star area ...", and of course, I should know how to spell "booklet" by now ....

Finally, here is the entire text of Purington's original article.

greenscatalog thanks for the Purington right up. Very interesting as shows 2 more varieties of 319 which seems to be verified by Brazer.

cfrohoto nice print out of the 5 varieties of the 319. Day light to dark to Scotts!

stamperix my 2015 and 2017 do talk about the 5 varieties but the pictures that the arrows point to are very week and not really noticeable on the lines nothing like cfrphoto posted to the thread.
But doesn't talk about or explain the 2 varieties of the star.

So if this are varieties and seemed to be confirmed by Brazer years ago then wonder why Scotts doesn't at least mention them in the catalog?

Thanks again for this post and the time as this is very interesting.

I am willing to update Stamp Smarter if;
1. there is a consensus on the actual varieties
2. someone can post high resolution images that clearly show the varieties

Don

What I would like to see is a survey of star variety by Type/Die (1 vs. 2) and by format (sheet vs. booklet pane) -- and maybe by major color?? -- in people's collections. That way we can see what the patterns are between these variables, if any.

So at the moment we have one solid data point: a Type 2 booklet pane with the 'open star' (Purington's Fig. 1) variety in a non-lake color. Can anyone add other combinations that have the open star variety?

I think this is a really interesting and new information about the 319. Nothing menioned in French's encyclopedia. But the illustration by Purington is so clear and obvious that I wonder why it is not mentioned anywhere. Purington himself says this is not a die difference, so for me this looks like the lines are the normal version and the one without lines is a worn plate, but Purington says here as well, that it's not a worn plate. So what should it be then? A plate variety which happens first in die 1 and them much time later by hazard at the same place in die 2? The only logical solution for me at this point would be that the lines are normal and should be visible on every stamp, but due to less ink / weak impression are missing on some.

I looked at some of my stamps and found the shading lines on each stamp, independent from die, but thinner on those with a darker red. So maybe it's depending on the used ink.

As a person with some manufacturing engineer and QA experience; I would say that it could be one of thousands of variables. For example, a subtle change in the ink chemistry may cause ink to flow into an area of the design where previously it did not. Or it may be process related, something different in the way the printing process was being done.

Not everything has to be related to a die or plate issue.
Don