An Unlisted Double Transfer On The Trenton Match Stamp.

I noticed blue spots present in the lettering of a stamp in an upper right vertical block of six of the Trenton Match Co. The markings were noted on plate position #44. Upon closer examination of the stamp the left frame line at the lower left was doubled inside the left stamp frame lines. Also, there was another portion of the frame line noted at the top left of the "O" of "ONE" confirming this stamp has a double transfer. This variety not listed in Scott's Catalogue

I don't think I would call it a DT. Plate flaws or damage may be a better explanation.

What's going on in the letters of TRENTON? Are those consistent in the design, inking anomalies, or DT?

Personally, to me a "double transfer" is shorthand for "a partial (or more) double transfer of the original design elements."

In other words, a vertical line would have another vertical line right next to it but slightly offset, or any other design element would be "doubled" to some degree, one direction or another.

A few random dots of ink color and/or lines here and there aren't double transfers.

They're more like "nineteenth century inking issues during a Civil War."

Jim

There are unlisted double transfers on m&m's however. I have a major DT on RS251, a pair of RS294, one with a major DT and one with a (very) minor DT, and RU15 with a DT, all unlisted. There are probably others still waiting to be found.

Well, sure, of course there are other double transfers out there.

But do any that you have, have random lines and dots of ink color here and there?

Or do they have some "doubling" of a design element?

Jim

Without being able to see a higher-resolution image, they could just be random inking anomalies, hence my asking the question.

Some DTs at first glance can look like random dots, e.g., some of the R53 DTs.

Also, don't forget about foreign entries, which can bear no resemblance to features on the stamp they're found on. I'm not saying that's the case here, but just because it doesn't look like doubling of a feature on the stamp doesn't mean it's not a legitimate plate variety.

I originally came to the same conclusion as most of you did until I saw the straight lines to the right of the left frame lines into the design which have to be a double transfer in itself and it came from a large study group from the Joyce collection.

I now agree that it is a DT. I wouldn't call the doubled frame lines the best evidence however. The most convincing evidence is a doubling of the right side of the plows. The horses mane, among other features, is also doubled quite well.

I agree about the plows. And FYI-two of the three foreign entries of the six cent state dept. are largely composed of dots in letters.

Assuming it is a DT, shouldn't it show up on a full sheet of the stamps somewhere? If so, Eric Jackson has a full sheet that could be checked for it. I believe he even has it with him at Balpex this weekend if anyone is attending.

Not necessarily, but it is certainly worth checking. Although it was only issued on watermarked paper, (which means only the BEP printed it), the plate may or may not have had positions re-entered during it's lifetime. There were approximately 36,667 sheets printed, so there is no way to be sure except to check that sheet.

I've been struggling with what is a DT as I've been looking through my M&Ms. I expanded my search to most of them, not just the DTs noted by Scott. It has been fun looking! Below are two scans of possible uncatalogued DTs.

The first one is a RO19b and certainly looks like a DT as there is a doubling of the inside border line on the left:


This one I am not as sure. It is a RO114 and whole lower half is somewhat "fuzzy". What looks the most to me like a DT is the "E" in "REV":


Am I 1-for-2?... 0-2?

I know less than nothing about M&Ms, but I'm thinking DT on the first and kiss print on the second; there's faint doubling across virtually all elements uniformly in a westerly direction.

The sheet that Eric has shows the same double transfer in the same position. It definitely looks to be a double transfer.