Harding Scott 613 Is This The Real Thing?

The poor plate wiping result is a shared characteristic of every rotary 2-cent Harding that I've ever seen. That includes both Scott 612 (perf 10) & Scott 613 (perf 11). As rogdcam pointed out, it is a far more reliable identifier of these stamps than any attempted measurement.

In general usage, the word patina does not necessarily mean a green surface derived from effects over time. Patina can also simply mean a surface that has become partially reflective from phyical or environment effects.

In this context, it is frequently used to describe mint or near mint coins that have lost some of their reflectivity, but are nonetheless very attractive due to subtle hues imparted to the coin from whatever physical or chemical effect played a role.

@drkohler I find it very interesting how you describe the stamp plates and how they are cleaned during the printing process. I'm guessing that the first sheets have relatively little of this "patina"? I'm asking myself the technical question: when printing flat, the printed image should be clear without any visible blurring? With rotary printing, there must inevitably be blurring in the printed image, because the ink moves in one direction during the printing process and the finest drops continue to run (in the printing direction)? So you should be able to tell from the printed image itself whether it is a flat or ratio printing process?



As always, a few decent pictures of the stamp from me and no, I'm not writing that this could be a #613, because no one knows because there is no mint. I'm interested in discussing the content of why a stamp looks a little different or comparing it to others.
Regarding this stamp, where does this blurry print image come from, e.g. on the neckline, why is there only temporary washing up to the extremely light "patina" in the number? Or is there a visible blob of color running along the edge?

Dittrich - There were huge numbers of these stamps printed and they were worth two cents. We are not talking about fine art here. You will see wetter and drier printings and tiny ink blobs and runs and everything in between. They were UTILITARIAN pieces of paper. Some of them have taken on outsize value because of differences that some people are willing to pay large sums of money for. Pretty much any stamp you magnify will show you imperfections and the more you magnify them the more you see. Differences in the actual engraving and perforating are a different matter as are things such as double/triple transfers, plate cracks etc. There are already long-established ways of identifying flat plate and rotary printings.

yes, of course a lot of stamps were printed and of course you put it next to a lot of stamps and compare and see, okay, it looks a little different. Everything can't be done, if you put nice stamps here to make money, that's your problem. Your answers are coherent and great, but they don't explain anything.

What do you want explained?

There are numerous potential things that could contribute to 'patina' including but not limited to; paper moisture content at time of printing, viscosity of the ink at time of printing, RH of the printing atmosphere, various procedural deltas (like wiping or plate cleaning variables), buildup of ink on other places like rollers and paper paths, differences in production environment supplies (i.e. cleaning fluids, rags, etc.) and even slight surface rust on the plate. For example, ever wash your car or otherwise get the rotors wet, park it for a 24-48 hours, and then feel the brake pads 'stick' to the rotors due to the surface rust that built up on them? If the pressman cleaned the plate before leaving work on Friday afternoon, it could be that by Monday morning a bit of surface rust accumulated and could be seen on the first few sheets printed.

I think rogdcam is right, these are just stamps. Inexpensive things which were intended to be used once. Quality Control was/is not strict like in a bank note printing environment where the currency value was high and the bills intended to be in circulation for quite some time.
Don

In short, I looked at every #610, the contours are relatively sharp, the writing is relatively clean whether it is an unused or unused stamp. My stamp is blurry, washed out, has a different tone and compared to the drawing pattern it looks more like a #613. So the printing plate must be defective, a different paper or... the stamp is a fake. I currently have no other justification and am looking for an explanation in print, i.e. the visible difference between flat and rotary.
I can also see that the typical blurring like the #613 is simply not there, so no "patina".
So if I understand everything correctly, without "patina" everything is flat print during this time.

Again I'm not happy with "patina". Leaving aside the green copper thing, patina is something that develops over time - which simply doesn't happen with printed staps (leaving aside the sulphurisation thing that plagues early stamps).
Here is an example what does happen over time:



At left a stamp printed late in the press run, at right a stamp printed early in the press run (both are from a booklet Sc. 498e).
You can see the degradation of the plate as plate wiping and ink wears down the plate. Add varying ink amounts, plate pressure, paper wetness, mood of the day and you get random events ink splotches, streaks, not enough ink, too much ink, whatnot in every print run of stamps.

It was particularly bad in late 1917 when German ink was no longer available and the BEP had to develop its own inks over time, and the early inks proved to be very abrasive to the plates initially.

It's not such a blatant page mistake, maybe it's the paper. May the stamp rest in peace until we know better about him

hello to ALL of you.
i must appologuise to you all I never had a chance to get the stamp scanned , but what I did do , is cut another harding rotaro p10...and this is the outcome.
verdict is out

Is there a reason why you are measuring the width and not the height? The width is never the issue. Anyway, this horse is being beat to death. Measuring these is a fool's errand. The "patina" did not do it for you?

The word PATINA has absolutely zero place in a proper discussion of black Hardings. Please stop. Use a correct term instead.

No and here is the reason why.

I did not coin the phrase patina in relation to the two cent Harding. Lawrence (Larry) Cohen did. Do you know Larry? He is the foremost authority on the two cent Harding's. He dedicated his life to the study of them. The strip of three was discovered by Larry. Larry had 200 volumes of just two cent Harding's and searched through 150,000 copies to find the strip of three.

If patina is good enough for Larry it is good enough to use here.

Capice?

Roger

Edit to add:

rogdam: Even the biggest stamp collectors/experts/whatnot in the world make mistakes.
Calling insufficient plate wiping "Patina" is incorrect terminology, plain and simple.