Great Britain SC 113 Or Sg 199 - Two Stamps - Both Have Identical Lines Top To Bottom

Good Morning Stamp Community,

I have two Great Britain SC 113 or SG 199 stamps which show the same line. One is "unused" and the other is used so two very different stamps showing the exact same characteristics. The line starts between the top of letters P and O of POSTAGE and continues to the lower left corner of the stamp. They appear to be identical. I know there are a lot of "broken plate" / "broken frame" type stamps out there. Need identification if possible please. I don't see a listing for these but my resources might be the issue.

FRONT - "Unused"



FRONT - Used



BACK - "Unused"



BACK - Used



Thanks!

Those have nothing to do with these.

They both appear to have been damaged by a foreign object after printing/use.

Your saying they were both identically damaged after printing... So, lay both stamps on top of each other and bend them maybe? I'm just confused as they were from two entirely different sources... So how did they both come together to get bent the same way... but okay.

I said "appear." What it, absolutely, is not, is a frame break or plate damage.

It might be a pre-printing paper fold. What it looks like in the pictures is a thin and not a fold.
Is there a clear fold?

Edit: Both stamps show printing where the 'lines' are. The two most likely explanations are that the paper was damaged pre-printing and the ink did not adhere well, or the damage occurred after printing.
A fold would result in an unprinted line.

More likely these are evidence of a foreign object on the plate at the time of printing.

Interesting curio!

Not impossible but highly unlikely. There would have been multiple objects on the plate, The first stamp also shows a line at bottom right. An even stronger argument is that these are two different printings. I am quite confident that scanning the stamps together will show to different 'shades.' You can see the red of the uncancelled stamp quite clearly from the back.

This would mean the foreign object was present over a longer period of time and not whiped of during that time.

The stamps are not identical. If you look at the outer frame line of the circle around the "head" and check where the nose and eyes point, the blank areas seen are not present on the used copy.

Me I guess foreign matter which left the plate slowly creating several different states of the ink defect. As to color differences, if any, do allow for the fact more can effect a used stamp than a mint stamp. Used stamps get soaked, some times a lot and repeatedly over many decades. I would say the unused was printed before the used.

Edit: There are other differences in the white line between the two stamps. I just pointed out the two easiest to see. Now if you look at the split between the "P" and "O" you will see the white exits the stamp in a slightly different location.

Nice find though! There likely were other variations until the issue resolved.

Without being an expert at these stamps I could see tath there is something unusual at the first one.
A very small part of the design is missing . This is most visible at right of the top leaf. I agree with the opinion stated by Bobby De La Rue ,tath it might be a rezolt of a foreign object tath was on the the plate during the printing process .

They may be two different printings, or one was left in the water too long when soaked?

I agree the stamps are not completely similar.

A few observations:
- you can see the lines from the back. If a foreign matter would have been on the plate, that would affect the printed areas, but not the unprinted area. Still, from the back, the lines are visible and uninterrupted. So, light being filtered by ink and not filtered where there is no ink cannot explain this.
- If you look at the pictures from the front, you will see, on both stamps the ink is not absent. Quite to the contrary: on the first stamp, the leftmost leaf of the top three leaves to the left of the left value tablet has been printed without interruption; it is not even thinner or lighter. So, whereas you see the 'line' and from the back an uninterrupted line, the printing does not fit the assumption something was on the plate. The bottom stamp does show some weaker printing, but still not absence of ink. The same goes for the third leaf from the bottom on the left-hand side.
- As remarked before, there is not just one line on the stamp, there are two. So much foreign matter on the plate going unnoticed is very unlikely.
- As for the colour difference - apart from the very obvious differences seen from the front - the colour is very much visible from the back on the top stamp, but not on the second. That and not so much the difference seen in the colours is a very strong indication these are two different inks and thus different printings. Wiping the plates did not remove the foreign matter?

As before, it would be interesting to learn whether the paper shows traces of a fold or wrinkling. It might be the wrinkling caused a problem with the surfacing of the paper before printing.

NSK,
The color of the two stamps does look very different . As suggested, tath could indicate tath the stamps are from two printings and were probably made in different time. I admit I haven't looked the back of the stamps carefully. The line is also visible there and it looks to have more or less concave appearance. Now it looks me more to a paper fold,or as the French philateliests are saying- acordeon.
It's still a very" good find".

I agree they are different 'shades.' I was the one suggesting that.

Parcelpostguy made a valid statement




You should take care 'identifying' those 'shades' from used stamps as colours are affected by soaking. Some of these reds are known to be very visible from the back of the stamp. Without going into the discussion about 'scarlet', 'deep scarlet', 'carmine', etc. it is that difference in the visibility of 'a red colour' that is indicative of two printings.

One likely being carmine and the other scarlet might also evidence two printings. Being able to see it from the back tends to avoid that issue with the Victoria Jubilees and Edward VIIs.

It is a nice find. It is no 'plate damage' or 'broken frame' variety. And I doubt it is a foreign object on the plate that caused it. I think a fold -probably more a wrinkle as the stamp is not wider at one and than at the other - is a good candidate. But it is not a major pre-printing paper fold.

Certainly a nice addition to any collection.