Printing Errors - Questions

Hey. I am kinda new at this but got interested about 6 months ago. I have been studying large banknotes.

I am uploading a couple images of a stamp on a cover that looks to me like it was over inked and smeared. Or is there a better explanation of what I see?

Thanks for the help.

I would not say that this is a result of over-inking. It could have been caused by poor plate wiping, dirty hands at the press, or the sheet being disturbed in some way before the ink dried. The best you can do is guess but that is all it will ever be.

The Vaux family is quite prominent in Philadelphia.

Also possibly some rust or minor damage to the plate which holds the ink.

OK, thanks for the responses.

Another one I am puzzled about is attached. At first I thought it was a short transfer but after closer examination, I figured it was a worn plate. But the partial stamp above is not similarly "worn." So, maybe I am wrong and it is an under inked stamp? Or???

What do the experts think about this one?

it appears to be a worn plate.

A VERY worn plate.

It does look like there could be a bit of a short transfer in the mix, along with the likely worn plate impression. Short transfers on the bottom of the 3c stamp seem to be pretty common. I have several.

This is a National printing, obviously, but one of the things theorized by Brookman regarding the worn plate appearance of some 15c Continental printings could be the result of trying to print with the paper being too dry, not allowing the paper to take up ink from the very finest engraved lines. I think there may be something to that but I haven't tried to distill my own thoughts and observations to the point of agreeing or disagreeing or trying to come up with my own explanation/theory.

OK. Very worn plate. Thanks.

I changed the subject of this thread to printing errors. So, I will post another one I have questions about. Also a 3 cent green banknote.

At first I thought this was Sc.158k, "printed on both sides" a seemingly very rare item. But further research leads me to conclude, no such luck this is what is a called an "offset." My questions are:

1. How is this different from a Sc.147a, "printed both sides, reverse inverted"?
2. Are offsets like this common?
3. Why isn't such an offset even mentioned in Scott? (maybe it is and I just cant find it)
4. This seems awfully detailed to have picked up a reverse image off the pressure plate that got inked the previous pass when there was no paper. I have seen offsets that look like ghosts but not one this strong. Am I wrong?

Interesting stamp. I think it is from being stacked on top of a sheet that still had wet ink. The odd thing is is that bottom sheet must have had some pre-print creasing and minor foldover issues?

Replying to Sinclair2010:

If I am interpreting your reply correctly, I think you are saying that because there a partial stamp this could not have been an "offset" but rather had to be from sheets being stacked. Correct?

And yes whatever made the backside image seems to have had a paper fold also.

Wow, I guess I am surprised that you could get this clear/sharp an image from stacked sheets. Seems like there would have to have been a lot of pressure also?

Wet paper is fairly heavy, and sheets would have continued to be stacked on top of this one. This is a nice offset, but it is far from unheard of to be this strong.

see lot 726 in the Harmer-Schau auction of last weekend

reply to eyeonwall

Nice. I see now that an offset can be a pretty strong image. Thanks.

This is the lot eyeonwall was pointing at:

Harmer-Schau Sale 121 Lot 726

Setoff, not offset.

@Sinclair2010: One way to distinguish Continental printings like the 15 or 30 cent from the same plates as the National printing is quality of the fine lines. The fine lines in the triangles of the Scott 163, the Continental printing are generally weak or missing while National printed Scott 152 examples have complete fine lines. Continental printings of the 15 cent Scott 163 on ribbed paper have complete lines in the triangles and are sometimes confused with the National printed Scott 152 examples. National printings of the 15 cent are a brighter shade of orange than Continental printings. One of the contributing factors to the gray black appearance of the 30 cent Continental 165 is the weak and broken fine lines in the vignette. Plate wear may also play a role. In addition to not using enough moisture, it may be possible that ink pigments used by Continental Bank Note Company was not as finely ground as National Bank Note Company inks. I know what I see, but the exact cause may never be known.

Clark, That's fine as long poor impressions from National printings are not called Continentals and good impressions from Continental printings are not called Nationals. I wish I had my 15c ribbed paper stamps ready to scan. I am not sure that I have any that would be confused as Nationals, I will have to do some digging.