An Interesting Observation Of My #17 Proof Sheets

I wanted to illustrate the position dots in the upper margin of the sheets to show that the same identical plate was used. I overlaid my early plate proof on top of my late plate proof and scanned the top of the sheet.

I then did the same thing on the right edge of the sheets to show the right side guide dots as well. I then noticed the stamp images don't line up across the top or down the side.

I then measured the stamp designs. The proofs in the earlier sheet measure about 18.25 mm. X 22.75 mm. The proofs on the late sheet measure about 18.5 mm. X 22.5 mm. Apparently the sheets were printed on different papers that shrank differently after printing. Not only are the proof images different sizes but the margins between the stamps are also slightly different. When one looks at the stamps as singles they are perceived to be the same size but in reality they are not.

Wish I had the printing plate to measure as that maybe the only way to determine the intended size. The late plate proof is also mounted on card stock and the early proof is not.

If the printed sizes varied this much on the stamps it would have been very difficult to set up the perforation equipment which had to be done by hand with spacers set between the perforating wheels. If you had two or more different papers in the stock to be perforated it would be very labor intensive to re-space them every time a different paper was fed through the perforator. No wonder so many of these stamps are poorly perforated. I know these two proofs were done many years apart but it still illustrates that different sized stamps could be printed from the same plate.

Mike

Watermark. Nice material. That is a very interesting stuff. You just found your next study and display for a show.

I hope they dont start listing proofs with different size varieties in the catalogues. Overload, overload! So much information to retain.

Mike

Very interesting watermark

Question for you since the frame lines are different sizes and printed on different papers....Are all dots and scratches the same on both prints..?

Robert

watermark: Do you know if both were printed from the exact same size stamp die or not?

Have you checked the direction of the paper grain?

This frame size variation in both directions (horizontal and vertical) on a stamp is usually the result between vertical (18.25mm/narrower x 22.75mm/longer) and horizontal (18.5mm/wider x 22.5mm/shorter) paper grain direction differences for wet printed stamps due to wet paper shrinkage across the paper grain after drying. The actual stamp size would be around 18.5mm x 22.75mm without wet paper shrinkage in any direction.


With no wet paper shrinkage, the above two stamps would be around 18mm x 21.5mm in size.

In response as to all the varieties being present on both sheets yes they are. There is additional plate damage from usage on the late plate but the original flaws on the early plate are present. Here are two examples of well known varieties:

Early "String of Pearls":



Late "String of Pearls" Note: Additional plate damage in and around 'POS'.



Early "Double Epaulettes":



Late "Double Epaulettes":



They were printed from the same flat steel plate. They are printed on very fine india paper (very thin) can not see grain. One on card I wont remove to try and tell. I suspect the papers would have different orientation of grain to printing.

Frame lines are very thin it would take microscopic examination to determine size. The stamps and margins between are different sizes.

Mike

Mike,
I look forward to see more on the next BNAPS study group newsletter.
It would be interesting to do similar comparison with the early printing (no 16 black or orange yellow) to see if these sizes variations are present.

We are definitely looking at paper shrinkage. Here are my black brown proof pair, and another late period proof single. These measure about 18.5mm X 22.75mm. The single has a surface scuff bottom left corner. These are "Double Epaulettes" varieties.