The United States Washington-Franklin Rotary Press Rarities Paper

Community member cjpalermo1964 has authored a paper titled
"The United States Washington-Franklin Rotary Press Rarities" and it is published here
http://www.stampsmarter.com/Learnin...arities.html

It has plenty of great information on this topic including a good Appendix titled "Do I have a 594 or 596? –A Collector's Guide to Identification".

This is a good link to supply to the new folks who join us and inquire about the possibility of having a 594/596.

Big thank you to Chris for investing time and effort in this helpful contribution to our hobby.
Don

Figure 3 shows the Hoe & Co Flat Plate Press printing currency. Was the it the same process for printing stamps?

Yes, according to user "Russ" in 2011.
https://goscf.com/t/12766

Thank you Chris. Great work.

Very nice article. Your thoughts are very clear and easy to follow. I struggle with Washington-Franklins mainly because I have never focused on them. Maybe this will be the push to actually check those that I have.

I would make one very minor suggestion. If you could add a photo (call it 6A) that showed a flat plate template actually on top of a rotary press stamp showing the difference it might help some collectors visualize what you discuss.

Congratulations on a very nice and informative article on this subject.

Two different types of perforators were used at that time for two different types of printing.

There were the rotary wheel perforators (so called flat plate perforators) which were used to perforate separate paper sheets of flat plate printed stamps gauge 11 x 11 in which two separate perforators were used with one for perforating the horizontal perforations and the other for perforating the vertical perforations while at the same time the larger sheets were also broken down into smaller sheets and panes by the perforators. Thus, sheets come before perforating. A stamp perforated by them is Scott # 552

There was the combination rotary wheel and rotating bar perforator (so called bar and wheel perforator) which was used to perforate paper webs/rolls of rotary press printed stamps gauge 10 x 10 in which one perforator was used for perforating both the vertical and horizontal perforations as well as cutting the printed and perforated webs/rolls into separate sheets. These sheets were then separately broken down into panes by a guillotine. Thus, sheets come after perforating. A stamp perforated by it is Scott 581

See: https://goscf.com/t/56242

Hi wkusau,
Thank you for the suggestion. Rather than duplicate existing information, instead I have added a link in Chris's paper to the Bob Allen paper on Stamp Smarter which describes and shows the flat plate template methodology (and images). Note, you may have to force your browser to 'refresh' to see the revision.
Don

Chris.. A brilliant informative article.

@jogil, thank you very much. Do you have citation(s) to secondary or primary sources or publications for that, or suggestions to look? I'd like to update my master copy of the paper and prefer to have publications as references, when I can.

cjpalermo1964: The information can be found in the following: http://stampsmarter.com/learning/Ma...rations.html

Nice job. Its good to see useful articles getting written.

Received it in my Inbox this morning........... (Academia)
Look forward to a good read!

Great work Chris! My only question is about the following sentence: "During the next fifteen years, each of the eight stamp denominations available (with one exception) featured either Washington or Franklin." Please explain because I am not getting it. Seems like there were a lot more denominations available than 8 during the 15 years of 3rd Bureau Issue definitives, and I can recall two exceptions (Madison, Marshall) to Washington or Franklin being featured.

@Rhett, that sentence is referring to the period 1847-1861, in which all denominations (1c, 3c, 5c, 10c, 12c, 30c, 90c, 24c) featured Washington or Franklin, so the Wash-Frank series represented a nod to that earlier times. In retrospect the linkage of that sentence to the prior sentence isn't great.

Chris