Curious R19c Dt Determination By The Philatelic Foundation

Technically, all of it. By definition, a double impression goes through the press twice. This stamp touched the plate twice by accident, which is a kiss print.

Stamp smarters definition: A stamp with the design, or a portion of the design, doubled.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how a partial impression could possibly be a "double impression".

here is the description for another term in PF data base cert. 584719 the whole stamp looks like a double impression.

AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
IT IS NOT SCOTT 231VAR, RATHER, IT IS SCOTT 231, GENUINE, OVER INKED AND SHOWING A PLATE JITTER, NOT A DOUBLE IMPRESSION, STAMP WITH A THIN AND A DIAGONAL CREASE AT UPPER LEFT.

Also cert 578920 shows only a partial double impression.

The vast majority of front-of-book "double impressions" are partial impressions, not complete... what we in the revenue area would typically classify as "kiss prints" or "kiss impressions." The Scott-listed revenue "double impressions" are full/complete. I guess the front of the book uses different terminology or standards. Wouldn't be the first time... *shrug*

I'm not familiar with the term "plate jitter" when used as a noun. To me that looks like a kiss impression... is that what the term means?

I don't know who gave the opinions on this. But I stand by what I posted earlier; a double impression must go through the press twice. Partial doubling of the image has resulted from a kiss print. I really don't know why some others do not see it this way.

I agree revcollector with your view. Just trying to get a better understanding why these certs are out there and how do they determine what makes one a kiss imprint and another a double impression. But there are also some full double impressions that are certified as kiss imprints. How did they come to those conclusions?

Remember that time is a factor here. Not every cert was necessarily looked at by the same people. So it becomes difficult or impossible to do thought comparisons of cert numbers that are too far apart.

I think that in many cases people are buying anonymous opinions. And these unattributed opinions have a shelf life as the knowledgebase and technology moves forward. Yet some folks view certs as the equivalent of timeless philatelic gospel.

I believe certs have value while they are relatively recent, certainly much better than asking an average collector for their opinion. But the lack of cert attributions, the lack of being able to follow the provenance of a cert, and the inability to match certs to a particular stamp or cover makes them something less than ideal.

Can some of this can be avoided if you get a cert directly from a single person like William Crowe? Since Bill also provides opinions for some of the certification organizations, it sets up an interesting scenario. Is sending in a cert directly to Bill better than sending it into an organization (who might use Bill)? I think it is since you know who put their eyes on your material.
Don

I think it likely is as well, the only caveat being that the large organizations have specialists for more arcane subject matter that could be beyond Bill's comfort level if that is even an issue? If that is the case though I suppose Bill could reach out just as they do?

I still think that PSE originally had it right in the 1980s and early 1990s, listing the experts that examined that item on the cert (current PSE is hot garbage). With APEX, if you're a member, you can at least call and ask who the experts were on a given item.

Why the industry moved away from accountability towards anonymity, I don't know... other than protecting their best interests, or getting push back from expertizers about having their names tied to decisions that may one day receive scrutiny. Regardless, I don't like it. It was a huge step backwards IMO.

I would think that there has to be some set criteria used when identifying these items. Maybe if we knew these check points, it would help us understand how they came to their conclusions. One that peaks my interest is the direction of production flow of stamp sheets.I would assume most presses have certain or constant direction of production flow. either right to left or up to down. something like that. I would think that would help determine many of these varieties. There has to be a limited number of ways these varieties can be created due to the consistent process. maybe the doubling can only occur moving to the right or left but not up or down but only in a very limited direction. And a kiss can happen all directions and in an unlimited direction? I would need to get a better understanding on how a flat plate press works. Is there any where I can find that infoirmation?

PF certs have images, so they can certainly be matched up. And the PF knows who signed on a specific cert. Whether one can find out that info would probably depend on the age of the cert and the discretion of the director. As to the provenance, since any philatelic item might be sold to anyone at any time privately, it would be impossible to be sure of where every item with cert traveled since obtaining it.

The hobby is cursed with terminology differences in general (eg double transfer vs re-entry). I agree with revcollectors definition of a kiss print and that, in order to qualify as a real double-impression, it has to be the whole design. That is how I have always understood things.

Not all double transfers are from re-entries. Some certainly are, but many are just from the transfer roll slipping or twisting during entry. There are far more of these types, at least in my experience.