C25A Miscut Pane Question...

The image below shows two miscut C25a booklet panes. The one on the left shows evidence of staple marks, but the one on the right does not. What is the most likely explanation for the one on the right lacking staple marks? Were uncut sheets ever made available to the public? What I am wondering about here is the possibility of the one on the right being "fake" by being created from an uncut sheet, and never part of an actual BKC-2 or -3 booklet. Or is there a more likely and reasonable explanation?



-Basil

I'm mot sure if it was done as early as 1941, but in later years unstapled booklet panes were made available at the first day city for use on first day covers.

Not that I think it makes a difference to your point, but these were issued in 1943, not 1941.

But even in the era when unstapled panes were made available on the first day, wouldn't it be unlikely that the POD would "issue" miscut panes like this? I am assuming (for whatever that's worth) that errors like this would get out into the wild only in booklets where the miscut would not be seen unless the booklet was opened.

And that is why I cannot help but wonder if "miscut" panes without staples might be fake. But that would require getting hold of uncut sheets and then miscutting them intentionally, and I'm not sure how easy or likely that would be.

Basil

I agree blcjr; given the quality control checking that the Bureau had in place at the time, the likelihood of actual issue is probably zero. These are probably best classified either as printer's waste or fakes. The left example doesn't even look like the correct width, and these were cut with fixed knives so variable width is not a possibility for a genuine pane. Also, the presence of staple holes does not increase the likelihood of genuineness. They have been faked as well in other issues.

I found this information on a page at pnc3.org:


I'm not entirely sure what it all means (like the fields with "." in them), but I'm definitely curious now about "Tabs without holes." Would this be a reference to staple "holes" (as opposed to perforations)? If so, how would this happen?

Basil

while this is a larger than normal miscut, miscuts from this time are far from rare and not printer's waste

To me, it appears to be a genuine miscut. While it doesn't show any marginal markings, it's still a pretty significant miscut.

Also, "no hole" panes do exist for this booklet pane and are listed in the Furman catalog. While my 1999 Furman is very out of date, it does price the "no hole" C25a at 10x the price of the normal booklet pane with staple holes -- that will at least give you a rough idea of the premium.

And yes, "tab without holes" and "no hole" mean the same thing in this case. The "no hole" panes are simply panes that were never bound by staples into a booklet.

Given the smaller margin and the premium value, could someone have not trimmed off the holes? Could the booklet be assembled upside down? (There appears to be small holes at bottom of pane?)
Don

Don, you have very sharp eyes. I have the piece in hand (received it yesterday) and looking at the back you can actually see the outline of the staples in the gum. That is not evident in the following scan, but the scan does clearly show the staple holes.

So this came from a booklet in which the panes were not just miscut, but the sheet was upside down.

Indeed, Don does have sharp eyes! A bonus EFO of an EFO!