Is There A Scott 634 Variety On Thin Stiff Paper (Says Michel)

I can not fathom how the PSE could have reached their opinion on the block of 716s. Defies logic completely to me.

My guess is that the PF cert is the result of the Siegel lot being put on extension. Might explain why you never see Siegel sell another similar item after that.

That PF cert is from the late 80's or early 90's.

Interpolating from PF certificate images from the last DFK auction puts the cert in question in or about 1998-9 which makes it contemporaneous with the PSE cert but prior to the Siegel sale date. Someone was "shopping" for a positive opinion it seems or, as I said, it changed hands and was put on extension.

Bart - Where do you land as far as what caused the "varnish"? Environment or production?

I think it was production, but I am not sure it was intentional. Something might have accidentally been added to the ink. However there is no question that carmine stamps can be affected by environmental factors.

The PF certs on Scott #205 (572966) and the block of four Scott #206 (396826) being with varnish ink, and nothing else cert'ed until issues in the 1920-30s (all carmine ink varieties), I think still could indicate an artifact of crystal mounts. Its still possible that there are many other stamps in collections/accumulations unnoted to be discovered to add more to the varnished ink question for what the cause may be, either manufacturing or the caretaking of the stamps. Would be of interest to know what Siegel's thoughts were about it.

My experience with stamps in Crystal Mounts is they have caused a lot of glazed gum (improper storage probably helped), but I have not seen any serious changes in shade or ink from them.

I think it is telling that after 2007-ish Siegel did not sell another similar item. There has to be a good reason. Maybe I will send Scott an email and see if there is a reply.

glazed gum - think of as a current state following likely different state(s) of origination over some time. But think of what might occur to stamp paper at an intermediate stage when the gum is softened per humidity (or foreign substance like a seltzer or soda or vegetable oil. or..). In short, some agents could disturb the gum to an extent that it permeates the paper towards the stamp design's ink. It wouldn't take too much pressure and or heightened temperature (we don't need the extremes that have been worded in earlier posts).

to waynezach - we don't need to sully the recognition challenge of the 5c Overrun Countries series' reverse printings with the analogy of this "greasy, sticky" mess of gum. (For the reverse printings of one color laid down before another, a high magnification stereo microscope is usually sufficient. Just because some don't use the best forensic equipment, or have trouble with some lighter-inked specimens under examination that leads to contradictory opinion, doesn't lessen the overall "cut and dried" nature of the printing, given the offset printing can be less definitive than intaglio or recess-engraved. This area is far cry from the fuzziness of present "glazed or varnished" #634 - the posts count is evidence of that.) Try another expertization area for comparison (having experts at odds.)

Cam across this 716 block that Spink sold in 2001. It is the same block that Siegel sold the year before. Interesting the way it was described.

rodgcam, are you still considering contacting Scott at Siegel to find out his current opinion about the varnish ink varieties?

Hi Al - I sent a message this past Thursday. We will see what happens.