US Scott 406 EFO Or Not?

Came across this stamp and wanted to post it in the old thread for EFO finds https://goscf.com/t/7747&whichpage=7

Haven't seen anything like this before and have been speculating that perhaps a piece of debris of some sort prevented ink from reaching this circular area of the stamp during the printing process. On the reverse side there is a raised area where the blemish appears on the front suggesting the debris was hard enough to make an impression into the paper. Retroreveal image shows the raised portion better than the scanned image and USB Microscope image.

I'm calling this an oddity but maybe it doesn't qualify.

Yours is a foreign matter freak. Note the thin but present "halo" of color on the left side of the depression on the inked side of the stamp.

Parcelpostguy

Thank you. Calling it a Foreign Matter Freak sums it up nicely.

I can't tell if the halo is red ink or a shadow. Is the area on front depressed or raised? If raised it is a perf disc. If depressed it was foreign matter that is now gone.

The halo to which I refer is only on the second photo.




Answer:



[GETTINOLD, check your email I sent you a message.]

eyeonwall

It's depressed in the front and raised on the back. When I first noticed the stamp I thought there was something on it. After closer examination I realized it was something out of the ordinary. It's now the only Foreign Matter Freak in my collection.

Dan

Got your message this morning. It went into my spam folder for some reason.

The technical printing term for this is a "Print Hickey" : The effect that occurs when a dust, dirt or debris (frequently dried ink) adheres to the printing plate and creates a spot or imperfection in the printing; in this case, it appears to be a small wad of paper.

Couldn't find a thread for Foreign Object Freaks so thought I'd add another example to this thread. This one is a Scott 424 with a depression from the reverse side and raised on the face.

Same idea, different side. The printed side has much more pressure due to the extra thickness of the deformed area. That causes the engraving to print differently by driving the paper deeper into the ink holding engraved lines. Do note the ink extruded from the raised area does form an ink halo again.




That is a modern term which only arose in the last 100 years of printing. Now it is a printer's term and not a philatelic term. The philatelic term is as mentioned above, a Foreign Matter Freak.

See item 53 here: https://www.efocc.org/Resources/Hot...AA_Cover.php

Parcelpostguy,
Until this thread I have NEVER heard of the phrase "foreign matter freak".
Who or what organization has defined this as a philatelic term?
When was it originated?
It is clearly *not* in common or widespread usage within the hobby.

The EFO Collector's Club, APS Affiliate 103, founded in 1978 beginning with John Hotchner. We began shortly there after to define and codify the various philatelic errors, freaks and oddities in the EFOCC's Journal, The EFO Collector. The various flavors of EFOs were discussed in the general philatelic press in the EFO Column, EFO Citings, in Stamp Collector Newspaper (authored by Hotchner, then Pagter) and in Linn's Stamp News in Hotchner's various writings. The behind the scenes discussions included Jacques Schiff the lead dealer in US errors and freaks and most EFO experts, collectors and dealers of the period. Hotchner and Pagter were the first Philatelic Press members advised of the CIA Candlestick invert by Jacques at lunch in Lehr's Greenhouse Restaurant in San Francisco during WESTPEX.

The core which worked with John, as the lead, for the definitions also helped with early editions of the Datz US Errors book. The book was for errors (as defined in the classification list) and not freaks nor oddities.

If you do not want to click through on the link I posted above, then just search for the "EFO Collector's Club" on the internet. On the home page click on "Resources" at the left and scroll down to "Papers, Articles" and the Hotchner Classification paper is listed first. Each line item number can be clicked upon for types within the general category.




Errors

1. Imperforate (Perforations, roulettes or die cutting)
2. Perforations of the wrong gauge applied
3. Inverted perforations
4. Pair of full stamps with the interpane gutter between
5. Pair of full stamps with the intersheet gutter between
6. Stamps misperforated so that the interpane or intersheet gutter is placed within a stamp
7. Perforations intended to separate panes are shifted within a pane, with a full stamp width on either side
8. Perforations fully doubled or tripled
9. Fully missing color or missing tagging
10. Inverted color
11. Error of color (ink)
12. Reversed colors
13. Stamp printed on both sides
14. One or more colors leading to the completion of a stamp is fully offset on the reverse of the stamp by the blanket roller
15. Double prints
16. Inverted overprints and precancels of Bureau of Engraving and Printing
17. Wide-spaced overprints/Bureau precancels
18. Missing overprints/Bureau precancels
19. Se-tenant Bureau precancels
20. Mistakes in the overprint
21. Double overprints or surcharges
22. Full plate number or other self-contained marginal marking within a misperforated stamp or souvenir sheet
23. Full plate number or self-contained marginal marking within a miscut stamp or souvenir sheet
24. Plate number only missing when associated color-design elements are present
25. Stamps unintentionally printed on paper watermarked for another issue or not watermarked at all
26. Stamps printed on the wrong paper
27. Grills fully missing or wholly doubled and tripled
28. Gum missing from a full stamp, or present on the front of a stamp
29. Bureau repair splice creates a mismatched coil strip
29.1. Self-stick stamp images printed on backing paper

Freaks

30. Single line(s) of perforations misplaced
31. Single direction misperfs affecting all the stamps of a pane or coil, aligned with the design
32. Diagonal misperfs affecting many to all the stamps of a pane
33. Four-way misperfs (boardwalk margins)
34. Two-way misperfs
35. Individual or multiple perfs off line
36. Blind perforations
37. Lines of perforations partially missing
38. Perforations partially doubled
39. Markings from perforating equipment on stamps
40. Paper creases
41. Paper folds
42. Straddle-pane miscuts and gutter snipes
43. Booklet and coil miscuts with marginal markings, including plate numbers
44. Coil miscuts unrelated to marginal markings
45. Booklet miscuts unrelated to marginal markings
46. Souvenir sheet miscuts
47. Double paper/mill splices
48. Double paper/roll-to-roll splices
49. Bureau or other printer repairs and splices
50. Rejection markings
51. Slime holes
52. Non-error grill varieties
53. Unprinted areas in the stamp design
54. Excess ink on stamps
55. Excess ink between stamps
56. Color variations
57. Tagging varieties
58. Printing on reverse
59. Doubled impressions
60. Color misregistrations
61. Overprint and precancel problems
62. Gum varieties

Oddities

63. Essays, proofs and specimens
64. Plate varieties
65. Design errors
66. Counterfeits, fakes and intentionally created varieties
67. Rotary coil end strips
68. Flat-plate coil paste-ups
69. Private perforations
70. Semi-official separations
71. Bisects
72. Spacing and sheet layout varieties
73. Other experiments
74. Test stamps, coils and booklets
75. Printer's waste
76. Different perforations on stamps of the same design
77. Local precancel varieties
78. Perfin varieties
79. Cancellation and meter varieties
80. Pre-first-day cancels
81. Cinderellas
82. Unissued stamps

This is the illustration used for "Foreign Matter' freaks.

Regardless of your length post and the people involved, etc., I will still contend the term is NOT in general use throughout the hobby, merely within a very small segment of it. Sorry, but that is the reality.

The word "foreign" or phrase "foreign matter" appears nowhere in the list of 82 items above. Which number are you referring to?

As a measure of usage: "Foreign matter freak" gets zero hits on ebay and only one relevant hit without quotes.

How many members does the EFO Club have?

Item 53, in the detailed description (not posted above) which is obtained when one clicks on each of the 83, not 82, items above (note 29 and 29.1) on the website. Here is only a list of the "blue text" upon which one clicks and then is taken to the detailed information.

E.g.: "Type 53: Foreign matter, such as the insect that landed on this stamp, results in unprinted areas in the stamp design (Scott 319g)." is one of several Type 53 entries. Above I illustrated the stamp with the fly. There are other 'captured insect' examples but no where near enough for them to ever be considered common. As a result few folks will ever be aware of such items.


I find this area no more obscure in philately then the minutia of the various little plate types, paper types or ink types in the early US classics. There is much to learn in philately, especially basic nomenclature and terms of art; few if any know them all.

By the way the most popular or expensive stamps in US philately are EFOs, for example the errors 85A (double grill error) and C3a (inverted printing error).

Lastly, this is not the first thread in the SCF which references and links to the EFO nomenclature. Additionally there are others on this SCF who are members of the EFOCC or collect examples of large portions of the list or both.

Never heard of foreign matter freak either. I am not an expert though. Just a dumb stamp collector.

I do not put much stock in the term "general use" even less in common knowledge or common sense. For example, ask some one how many days are in a year, and the quick answer will be 365. There is even a trope to that effect, "24/7/365" meaning all of the time.

What happen to leap day? Slightly less than 25% of the years have 366 days. But what about the years that have leap seconds? They too are different. But general use, replies 365 days in a year without concern to the many adjustments made to that measurement.

That all said, leap day, February 29th and the celebration of leap year, could be an interesting perhaps award winning topic in philately don't you think John Becker? Of course some judge might ask why the exhibitor did not show any Feb 29 covers from 1900.

Yes and general use produced covers to celebrate the century:



12-31-1999 nor 1-1-2000 was the start nor end of a century or millennium. The third millennium and 21st century did not begin until 1-1-2001. Yet for folks, it was the start of a new century/millennium per the general (wrong) knowledge. What was worth celebrating was the fact 2000 was a leap year as that only comes around every 400 years, 1600, 2000 and the next 2400.