Curious R19c Dt Determination By The Philatelic Foundation

I happened to be browsing recent revenue certs at the PF, and this one jumped out to me.

Cert # 596029.

Opinion:







This does not look like a double transfer to me in any way, shape, or form nor is it a position that has been reported by any of the specialists for inclusion in the plate variety database, i.e., there's been no confirming example.

This instead looks like a printing anomaly, a partial kiss impression where something bounced as paper went through the press.

Thoughts?

P.S. Just browsing the recent certs, there are an incredible number of extremely BAD 1st issue imperfs and part perfs submitted for certs, many with colors completely wrong. Has there been an Aldrich auction of revenue singles recently?...

Kiss print.

I agree, it is a kiss print.

What year was the cert issued?

The PF site doesn't provide dates of certs; you have to have the cert or an image of it to see the exact date.

However, given that I was browsing starting with the most recent, I would assume within the last year or so, if their uploading is reasonably up to date.

The most recent cert currently on the website is #598158, so #596029 would not be very long ago in the global scheme of things.

I believe this to be a partial double impression. They are very scarce, but do exist on both postage and revenue stamps of the 19th century. Probably occurred when the roller was just beginning to pass over the plate to create the impression, was then pulled back, the paper adjusted slightly and the run begun again.

What is the difference between a "kiss print" and a "partial double impression", or are they synonymous?

From the EFO Collector's Club.
https://www.efocc.org/Resources/Hot..._Type059.php

The stamp in question is printed by flat plate.
The most recent posts seem to be going down a "rotary" process path.

Yes, you are correct - I should have used the more general definition for double impression (observation-based, not cause-based):

"A stamp that exhibits linear duplication in all or some part of the design, irrespective of the cause of such duplication".

So by txstamps post this is a double impression?

Just a general thought - it seems like with a kiss print you'd be more likely to get distortion than with a true double impression.

edit: My first reaction when I saw this was and still is, that this is a kiss print.

I have something similar on a 15 cent inland.

It is certainly way too blatantly obvious to be a completely unknown double transfer.

Definitely not a double transfer.

So stamp smarter doesn't give a definition for a kiss imprint only for a double impression and that seems to aline with what we are seeing here. how much of the design needs to be doubled before it is called a double impression?