Unitrade 242 - Halifax Horbour - Missing Inscription

Some of the lower left plate blocks from the 13 cent Halifax harbour stamp of the 1938 pictorial issue were printed without the inscription in the left margin of the lower left plate block from plate 1. This was the only plate used for this issue. Other plate blocks have the normal inscription




I assume that the blocks with the missing inscription are from the first printing and the corrected ones from a later printing.

Unitrade gives a printing figure of 13,028,000 stamps = 65,140 sheets of which only 1 in 4 are the lower left pane. So a maximum of 16,285 lower left plate blocks.

I have not been able to find anything on the web about the relative numbers of blocks with or without the left margin inscription.

Any thoughts or better facts ?

AQ

An albino impression occurs when there is a slight impression in the paper with little to no ink visible.

Good point. I should have thought about that.

AQ

Yes, the top image shows an 'N' that is not hard to see.

In fact the whole number is just about visible on very close inspection.

I wonder if it was a inking error on a few sheets or if the original engraving was not deep enough and if it then was re-engraved.

I have not heard of this error on any of the other values of this issue which may suggest that the original engraving was incorrect but then Unitrade does not list it so it may be a non-constant printing error.

I see ebay has a current listing at US $ 100 for a block of 4. This also has the number very faintly visible just like the example I showed. I wonder if it will sell.

The obvious question - based on a sample of only 2 !! - is are all the known copies similar in which case it would appear that the plate was corrected and therefore exists in 2 states which should be listed in the catalogue.

AQ

Albinos are usually inking errors in that not enough ink was deposited into a part of the printing plate.

I know what an albino overprint is and I think they occur most often with overprints or where the paper has been through the press twice not with the original printing ie sheet printing. These stamps were printed in the web not as single sheets.

The three examples I have seen of his error are all exactly the same which is what makes me think that it is due to an engraving error.

I suspose that there could have been a problem with the ink supply to the very edge of the plate which somehow did not effect the stamps themselves which are only 7 mm away but how likely is that ? These stamps show no sign of being under inked.

If anyone else reading this has another example it would be interesting to know what it is like,

AQ

Scott 190 with albino plate number

Interesting. This example seems to have a much deeper impression of the uninked parts of the inscription much like I would have expected for an albino printing.

On th eexample I posted there is no trace of any indentation in the paper where the inscription is. This is also true of the other example where the plate number is shown. The only parts of he design that show through on th ereverse are the dark blue borders and letters. There is no trace of the rest of the design on the reverse. Therefore the engraving must be very shallow in these regions.

I still do not understand why there is no weakness in the stamps next to the imprint. As I said it may well be a problem with the application of the ink.

I will have to ask some more people who have studied this issue much longer than I have will perhaps know a bit more about it.

One way or the other I would like to understand how it occured.

AQ