What Kind Of Paper 3 Cent?

"Hello to all of you in the forum, I am passionate about American philately, I must say that I am a beginner in this field and I apologize for any errors of judgment, I ask your opinion on this 3 cents specifically on the type of paper used with excessive porosity 'so as to disfigure the face, in your opinion what kind of paper was used for these samples?

The gum on the early 1851 issue could be very poor, i.e. adherence ability was limited. Senders would attach a stamp with a wax seal or a wafer and press the stamp onto the letter to keep it attached to the wax seal. Based on your scan, I think this is what you are looking at.

This stamp looks like it may have been mounted in a self sticking photo album and the glue is residue.

I just wanted to say that apart from the glue that you see,once I read in a magazine or on the web (exactly I don't remember),that there were some stamps printed on rough paper,very difficult to find,and considered rare.According to your competence can be this 3 cent one of these? Or it is to be excluded considering it of low quality.Thank you for your courtesy.

Just a normal stamp.

josef, there could be more than one explanation for the unusual pattern you see on the back of this stamp, but none of them would relate to the paper the stamp was printed on. Some outside factor was at work.

That's great, your opinion. You're really competent in the matter. So long, a big hug.

One last thing, josef. Perhaps you are thinking of "grills," which were sections of raised points that were pressed into the stamp in order to weaken the paper fibers and thus make it more difficult to remove cancels from these areas. Some of these are inded very rare, but stamp you showed was never grilled.

Further info: http://www.stampsmarter.com/learnin...8Grills.html

With a light soaking on the water, now you can better see the dots, which go down in a vertical line, and show a rise in the inner part of the stamp. Could it be a bad grill or a multigrill? If it had been ripped on an album would have perforated the stamp with these marks? It is said that no grill was badly perforated by perforating the stamp. My only opinion is that of a beginner, I just try to understand. Good day.

This stamp was never issued with a grill. As Dudley pointed out above it's from something outside of normal stamp production.

Looks like someone ran over it on a rough surface with something. Lower right also looks a bit like trimmed perfs.

The 'poke marks' happened after the stamp was made - this issue was never grilled. If you look at the lower part of the cancel (above THREE CENTS), it looks like there are some 'blanks' in the cancel where there are 'poke marks'. To me, this implies that the damage was done after the stamp was made, but before it was canceled.

Caper123, I also see the indentations at lower right. They are not apparent in the first photo, where the stamp is a little flatter. I wonder if what looks like perfs are more 'poke marks' but very close to the LR section of the stamp and with the stamp a little rounded (like it is in the 2nd photo) that the 'poke marks' APPEAR to be the edge of the stamp (and, thus, perf remnants), when they are not AT the edge, but only very close. This is very, very clear along the top edge.

I suspect the stamp was bought at the PO, then had the 'poke marks' applied (NOT part of the printing/manufacturing process) by some kind of roller device (the 'poke marks' almost appear to be done in 'lines'), then the stamp was applied to the envelope (and only the very ends of a few of the 'poke marks' stuck to the envelope, allowing much of the gum to remain on the stamp) and mailed. At some later date, the stamp was removed from the envelope, and we see it as it is today. I have no idea WHY anyone would apply the 'poke marks' to a newly purchased stamp in the 1850's. It may have even been an accident, and the stamp was used because it wasn't completely mutilated.

Just my personal guess.