#1702 With Double Impression Of Black - Known Variety?

I have a plate block of US #1702 with a double impression of black. Does anyone have knowledge of this variety? I did not find info. Not obvious in image, but very clearly double impression when placed next to a normal 1702 plate block. Black is heavier, and on close inspection, is struck a second time with offset to the right about 1/4mm.

Slight offsets such as this are not uncommon. There is no market for them. It is not a variety, but a slight printing foible.

Smauggle, clarifying question. Your reply sounds like you are describing a registration error, where one color is shifted a tiny amount. Just to be clear, this is not a registration error, I do not believe. It looks like the black was printed TWICE, with that slight registration change to make it visible. The image below shows an up-close comparison.
Is your response intended to state that small-offset double impressions are not variations, or after viewing this image, are you stating that you don't think this is a double impression, but only a registration error or something else?

abbystamps,

Just letting you know that you are not alone here. I have a US 1702 double impression or re-entry ( whichever you'd prefer ) in black as well. Good find! I'm just glad I found your post!

You have to show proof of at least two instances for it to be acceptable in any stamp forum - so here are my examples.

Good hunting!





Real world example: Unless a crime scene has ANOTHER IDENTICAL crime scene it can't be taken in as evidence. Good luck getting justice with that logic.

Quality control/precision on the U.S. offset printings was not the best at that time.

I'm under the (double) impression that quality and control are either neglected intentionally or based on the caliber of the individuals responsible. Much like life. I have gathered enough evidence to know there are mistakes and errors everywhere. Most are insignificant - meaning not bad enough for anyone take notice. When presenting your material you'll often times find opinions that are quick to judge. Don't be bullied. We need more intelligent responses based on fact or evidence when replies are made to the forums. You can tell some posts are merely submitted to increase the total number of the individuals posts.

Souldjer777, thank you for submitting your double impression of 1702. Mine is so slight, I had to view a comparison to a normal 1702 to be sure. Yours is very clear!

I was intrigued by the stamps shown. I dug out my used copies of 1702 and 1703. They had been sorted previously by myself and many other collectors before me, likely only by the visual differences of snowflaking, etc. I confirmed the ID with a UV light and corrected a few mis-IDs. I found:

1702 with overall tagging - 117 copies
1703 with block tagging - 110 copies
(To my surprise, I think I found one without tagging, 1703c)

I did find 6 of the 117 copies of 1702 with a slight upward and lighter partial doubled lettering, roughly 5%. Three of the six very very minor. The most prominent being a pair, the right stamp shown here:



I looked through the "U.S. Specialist", but did not see any articles on the printing of this specific issue. Before going on, I would note an earlier post which said, in part:




There is a difference in the terminology as these two terms are not interchangeable. Although the result may look alike! Re-entry is a doubling on the plate which would create many identical impressions over a press run, and yes, typically proven by a confirming copy. A double impression is a unique occurrence of the plate/paper interface where each similar occurrence can/will be slightly different.

Going on ... It is clear to me this minor doubling is not a plate defect, but rather a printing effect. Consider, after all, this is a rotary process going how many press cylinder rotations per minute and how many hundreds feet of paper pass through the press every minute? (I would love to know the rates more precisely.) It doesn't take much chatter or vibration of the paper web, or slight mis-synchronization of all the moving parts at these speeds to have a tiny difference or defect show up in a small percentage of the final product. And across the web of paper affecting multiple positions which see find as pairs, blocks, etc.

On a tangent, I found other copies of 1702 with slight transient color mis-registrations, maybe also about 5%, not enough to be out of production tolerance nor catalog listable as constant.

John, thank you for posting the correct definitions and terminologies. We should strive to avoid confusion and mis-information.
Don

These are not re-entries. They are either due to bouncing/chattering or due to an earlier stamp not being completely dry and a roller picks up some of the wet ink and then deposits it on the stamp under discussion.

Could be tagging ghosts. Linn's has an article on tagging ghosts with examples. John since you only found this effect on the 1702 which is overall tagged, that seems like a possibility.

I didn't look at the 1703 copies in any detail for doubling. 1703 is also printed on a different press.
Do you have the citation to the Linn's article handy? Sounds interesting.

Definitely a printing issue and not a re-entry plate variety. Eyeonwall's analysis seems accurate.

eyeonwall is correct. press chatter and even slight reversal on shut down are known occurrences. meany of the multi-color issues of that period exhibit some degree of the same thing. imo most major shifts of this era should be considered printers waste.

Printer's waste is material set aside for destruction that is subsequently "rescued" at some point in the waste stream (either internal to the printer and snuck out the back door or by someone after it has left the printer. If the items make it thru the printing/processing/packaging without being caught and then sent to the Post Office they are not considered printer's waste. Whether or not it looks like something that should have been caught and diverted to waste is not the question. Exact same errors and freaks, but one group makes it into the wild legit and the other illegit.

I will risk a tangent onto Scott 1703 ...

While ID checking 1702 (overall tagging) vs 1703 (block tagging) with a UV light I came across two copies of 1703 with tagging shifts enough to barely create "split tagging". Same stamps shown under normal and UV light: