Paper Mesh Comment In Unitrade For Watermarked Paper

Hello,

in Unitrade there is a comment after #21 that there can be Bothwell paper even without part of the watermark, when there is a "distinct vertical weave of the paper" present.

For #22 the "Bothwell paper" has a note "see after No. 21", the following large Queens also have "Bothwell paper", but without note. I guess the first note is also valid for them.


What I wonder about:

- there are other LQ papers that also have a vertical mesh, like the paper 1, 7 and 9. Is the difference of the Bothwell paper just that the mesh is more distinct? (only talking about the mesh here)

- is a distinct mesh (in any direction) also a hint for the other watermark variety, the Pirie?

Stamperix, you put a very good and nice question.

Uni-trade just mention the paper, but nothing about how come this paper was used? by all my resource, the English manufacture never sell to the government, none to the government distributor from Montreal and also to the printer, SO Mystery of using this kind of paper.

Reality, this kind of paper was use.

The funny things here is everybody talk about, but no one show the specs of the paper. For me this is very strange? If some one have the stamp just to put a scan or better a 1000x microscope photo, like this we can see if it is this paper or not. why I say 1000x magnified it is because this was a premium paper (like Pirri), so the fibers have theirs own characteristics which could not be confounded with others.

My opinion now for use of this paper it is: Was essay and not the regular official printing, which for one reason of other come on circulation; like unperformed King which with the exception of the 3 cent denomination if I am not wrong of denomination, the rest come from the scrap papers of the printer. Parentheses: My very young room is decorated with Queen rolls of scrap printer papers, so if today collecting of stamps consider also scrap paper like official stamps put in circulation, are mean we just look for profit business and not collecting.

Go ahead with your investigation, and if you find something please let me know. And please do no forgot that only 13 stamps of every sheet have watermark. The only complete watermark strip I know it is in London and they do not give me the permission to analyse.

Good lack,
Silvio

The Bothwell paper has a well-defined diamond-shaped vertical pattern, it is most evident in watermark fluid. The paper was always used in the vertical, I have never seen an exception.

Papers 1, 6, 7 and 9(a) can be distinguished by more than the mesh pattern. The tone of the paper differs on all four as does the coarseness of the paper fibers.

The Bothwell watermark can be found in reversed and inverted orientation, meaning it was suitable for printing either side.

It has been speculated, though never proven, that the paper supply for Large Queens was cobbled together from end runs and old / surplus stock of other printers.

The Pirie paper, used in small quantities in 1874-75, was likely part of this stock. It was finished on one side, the watermark is always found reversed. The grain is always found in the horizontal, and being more suitable as stationery paper it is found thicker (.0037" or so) than the average Large Queen stamp paper (ranging widely, from 0.0022" to 0.0035").

Thank you both, and especially thank you for this very helpful information, archerg. This is actually all I asked for. Only thing that now comes into mind is, whether - as with the Bothwell paper - there was ever a try to define the Pirie paper independently from the watermark parts. So is the paper thickness and maybe something else a very strong characteristic for this paper, or would it always only certified as such with the watermark part? (I don't have a candidate, only asked my questions as I saw thge note in Unitrade for the first time)

---
I just looked into the things that R. Gratton found in his article "Les différents papiers..." in the Philatéliste canadien from May 2012 about the paper thickness, he lists the Pirie and Bothwell both with thick, but also other papers as 8, 10, 12. So I guess I can answer my own question that the paper thickness can't be the best hint for a Pirie paper. If there others, let us know, of course.

I haven't much to add on Pirie, except that the unfinished gumside surface shows a strong diagonal ribbing pattern imparted by the papermaking roll.

As the paper was only used for a brief time, knowledge of shades and perfs in use then are also an aid.

Mr. Gratton was employed in the paper industry for decades and would provide better insight than I.

Thank you again. There is no search for certificates in the Greene Foundation, so the keyword "Pirie" does not help there. Databases of Siegel and PF don't show any such results. It would be actually interesting to know if there was ever (on or off cover) a stamp that has been certified as Pirie without showing any part of the watermark (and why). If I summarize what I learned here and elsewhere I think the paper and the stamps should show strong characteristics for getting such a "no watermark" certificate.

The Greene does expertise for Pirie paper without watermark, and has ample reference material (including a full script watermark on stationery) for such work.

I have a piece of stationery paper with letter dated Sept. 15, 1866.
It has a slightly different A. Pirie & Sons watermark than the one found on the LQ's. It is on laid stationery paper so a different paper than the stamps. The ampersand after Pirie is also a different shape. I don't know if the size is the same either. Here is a back lighted image of the watermark. Still fun to see.

http://www.canadianpsgb.org.uk/mpl/...n01-w005.pdf

a very interesting article about the paper.

Silvio