Question: Why Do So Many Canadian Stamps Have A Small Number Of Imperforate Pairs?

One question I have had is why do so many Canadian stamps have a small run of imperforate pairs?

For example, Scott# 249-256 each have a variety with between 75-150 imperforate pairs listed? Why?

Thanks for helping me learn a bit more about stamps as I get back into the hobby!

Matt

Hi and welcome to the forum. Excellent questions, I have sometimes wondered if imperfs were intentionally manufactured to feed the collector's market. Unfortunately, there have been many examples of a little 'insider dealing' to get oddities and freaks out to unscrupulous dealers. Chris

There have been several ways imperf stamps entered philatelic market.

1) the ABNC sale of 1990 onwards released several imperf pairs/blocks/centre of sheet etc., These are printed on India paper and mounted on card stock sent from Ottawa printer to ABNC for record purposes. These were sold at auction and Canada Post did not stop this. The proofs were on card stock which is not gummed. This type will be sanctioned release.

2) some imperf sheets, (post office size) were found in post office stock, which are errors on the part of the printer, and their perforating section missed such. These were snapped-up by the trade and such can be termed insider dealing, because Post Office counter staff are instructed to withdraw such items. Thanks to them they did not. these will be on the gummed postage paper. This is insider dealing

3) Printer sent full printed imperf sheet to post office for approval prior to the printing plate being hardened. this sheet was returned to the printer with approval and remained in their vault in Ottawa and was transferred to Post office later on. Printer never released any such imperf items to the philatelic market from Ottawa printing unit. Printer also sent one imperf sheet on the first print run to the Highest official of the Post Office, which was not returned to the printer. Such sheets were cut and given as favors. This practice was stopped, but I have no exact date for this. The disposition of such sheets may not have e recorded in the post office records OR if they were, there are no such files to be seen in the Library and Archives Canada holdings. Such favors would find their way to philatelic market at some point in time and these are on gummed postage paper. This is official favor release.

Thus, availability of these imperf pairs/blocks cannot be all relegated to intentionally manufactured to feed the collector's market. Contrast this to Farley's follies. Farley and FDR each had imperf printed sheets right off the press; the ones officially released later by Farley were imperf on un-gummed paper, albeit for pacifying the public who cried foul. Here, it was intentionally manufactured to feed the collector's market.
cNA

Some imperforate stamp pairs could be from plate proofs (printer), others from imperforate sheets (printer) or panes (post office) and others from printing waste (printer).

Jogil is so correct about printer's waste.

Years ago, I was in a stamp store talking to the owner and this guy came in and stood at the opposite end of the counter...I was going to be there for a while, so I said Tom "Go ahead and talk to him"

He went to the end of the counter and as I was looking in the cabinet, all I heard was Tom yelling "Get the hell out of my store"

The guy closed his briefcase and left quickly. I asked Tom what the problem was...Tom said "He had a whole briefcase full of printer's waste"

Wish I had followed him..haha

Printer's waste is more common than collectors realize.

Robert

thanks so much for the information. It's fascinating how some of these items get to the market. I am curious now about Printers Waste. Are these just as the name implies: extra stamps produced by the printer that were not sent to the post office?

Matt

Printers waste: Stamps are accountable paper. There are no "extras for the printer to keep" in this sense. Printers waste, often produced in getting a run started/stopped should be destroyed, but some gets illegally "lifted" by employees. If is generally frowned upon by the collecting market and catalogers.

Stanswick: My answer was in context of your question on the recess printed issues. Printer in Ottawa incinerated the waste, at the premises. The paper used for recess printing was rag based and the Gum was refined natural gum Arabic. Incinerating the waste was not producing harmful fumes. Printers waste was not in my comments, because, there was never ever any waste pilfered from Ottawa printers for the time period you are asking.

As time progressed, the waste consisted of synthetic coatings, synthetic gum, synthetic base for peel and stick items etc., posed a problem for incineration. Post recess printed era, out side companies had to be enlisted to take waste and destroy it at a different location. Then starts the pilfering; this has happened and people have been prosecuted. Some get away and make money; then the philatelist is duped into believing these are genuine items.

Waste denotes sub-standard prints, that don't qualify as finished goods. If Post Office orders an amount of stamps , the spoilage allowance is added and paper issued before the printing commences. Depending on many factors, the spoilage can be excessive OR lower than anticipated. If the spoilage was lower than anticipated, Post Office can end-up with more than ordered amount.

You will find there were Washington/Franklin issue printers waste floating around. These prints are crude and cheap reproductions done by unscrupulous people and bombastic terminology used as tests from printing plate cleaning etc., = not printers waste.

cNA

Hey Matt

Proof readers would regularly remove/examine/sign a sheet to be sure quality adheres to Canada Post requirements...These sheet proofs were done during runs and before gum and perforation processes were completed.

When I was a printer, I was my own proof reader.
Printer waste as John Becker says..



This has always been a tongue in cheek means of acquiring imperforated stamps...NOT legal, but it happens.

Robert

In my opinion this is why making a market for EFOs is a bit dicey. If something got through QA inspection at the printer, got through incoming inspection at the Post Office, and was sold across the PO counter to a postal customer, then I guess it could be called legitimate.

But without a provable provenance, we are just encouraging a market for people to slip things out the back door. Even having a 'used' EFO on cover is does not prove that it was sold across the PO counter since anyone can steal printer waste, stick them on a few envelopes and get them through the mail stream.

There are a handful of EFO which have firm provenance and I think those are worth collecting.

And lastly determining what an EFO actual is virtually impossible because there is no published criteria for printing tolerances. As Robert mentioned, often times this was done subjectively. But as far as I know no one has ever produced an inspection document or drawing which specifies a tolerance. For example, we have all seen color shifts on stamps. Where is the inspection doc or drawing which says 'any color shift more than 0.5 centimeters should be rejected'?

Without any inspection docs or drawing from the PO or printers, we have endless ebay listing which declare 'major error' or 'incredible EFO' based upon a the sellers judgement of how much color shift the stamp has. Only if we knew the criteria used by the PO or printer could we know what was and was not considered acceptable.
Don

Robert: Please tell me which stamp printer you worked for. I guess from your words, that it was not stamp printing, but let's see.
cNA

Canadian please do not try to set me up to belittle me.
I enjoy this stamp forum..Bobby has done a great job.
And our moderator Don does a fantastic job here to.

If you want to be a troll,that is up to you, but please don't do it against me..I just want to enjoy stamps.

Robert: Profound apologies, if you feel offended; I have no intention to belittle you at all.
1) These sheet proofs were done during runs and before gum and perforation; btw gumming is pre-printing.
2) In stamp printing, when a sheet is pulled for checking the print, it is not considered waste, unless there is a mistake. if the pulled sheet is perfect, it is returned to the printed pile.
3) A printer has to be bold/insane to fold an entire printed sheet to fit his/her pocket and go through several check points. there are cameras and fellow printers all around; pilfering a printed sheet at the press is not possible.

I will never ever spoil your enjoyment here. I have no such intention.
cNA

One source of imperforate stamps that hasn't been mentioned is coil stamps. According to the Unitrade catalogue:

"Operating at approximately 12 tubes a minute the coil stamps were produced almost completely without visual inspection. Imperforate and double-perforated coil stamps were a regular occurrence..."

This was for the period 1969-2000. I suppose that these should be called EFO's, but they did legitimately enter the market. See the Unitrade catalogue for more details.

Jan

Don:
1) "...virtually impossible because there is no published criteria for printing tolerances";
Answer: please look at the pre production stage; the design/s submitted first; select one design; prepare model; approve model; this is the standard to conform; Post Office will never say to the printer, "Hello printer this is a complex stamp with six colors; I will accept 0.3 mms color shift"; Never; printer has to conform to the approved model.

2) Inspection sheets in the form of sheets issued for printing, waste etc., is submitted to the Post Office for every contract. This is not a public document. even if this became a public document, one cannot draw any conclusion to say "X" number of sheets ended up in the philatelic market.

3) John Becker's comments is very sensible; "Printers waste, often produced in getting a run started/stopped should be destroyed..". The start and end runs are often waste + if in the middle or any stage the registration is off or color is missing.

4) When Ashton Potter printed stamps in Canada, they had a stage called "Wet-Trap Proofs"; the sheets run on this proof stage is waste;
Canada Post realized this was costly and went over to producing the printing plate and print therefrom. It was usual to have 5,000 sheets as waste at the beginning. Registration of one color the graduating to all the several colors, the increasing speed to see that printing is correct will result in waste. These 5,000 sheets are waste and are incinerated. At the end of the print run, again dis-engaging the ink rollers step by step means several sheets are waste.

5) John is correct in saying every sheet of paper is to be accounted for.

cNA

Rod222: Obviously you don't like correcting established mistakes, to the extent you questioned if every mistake on the internet should be corrected. With > 29k posts, you may be right!

Don: Thanks for the 'jerk' appellation. Being a moderator is not easy. You speak your mind.

Robert: Me a troll? Never will I pitch against you.

Adieu
cNA