Mint Sheet With Missing Plate Number

with John Becker. Why it is interesting to see the offset is that the sheet below in the stack had some portion of an inked plate number, unlike yours.

A great example of an albino plate number is the 1895f 20c Flag over Supreme Court coil- there is an albino impression of the court and on the stamp that was supposed to have the plate number you can see an albino 5. This error was caused ny no black ink on the plate rather than the plate being disengaged from the paper.

An example of a plate number completely missing is on the 2813a 28c Love Sunrise convertible booklet pane. Some were found with the engraved green plate number completely missing with no albino impression (it does have the offset plate numbers present as B444 and all of the stamps have all their green printed). There were found with some B444-16 panes, so it is believed to be a missing 16.

Not quite. I am distracted with other projects tonight to dig too deep and make long replies, but am I recalling correctly the press set-up was done with 4 plates set up simultaneously in 4 connected stations to clean, ink, wipe, print, repeat, etc. Such that a stack of printed sheets would repeat plate numbers every 4 sheets, thus when set-off plate numbers are seen on the back they would be from the previous plate in the printing sequence and not the same plate number. I would also note that most issues in this era had 4, 8, 12 plates made, etc. Am I remembering wrong?

Regardless, it is very clear from Scott, Durland, Hebert, that the plate number was NOT missing on the original plate.

Add:
Scott 761,
Plate number F21323 on front
Plate number F21321 set-off on reverse.

Since the plate has an 'F', it went through the hardening process. There were countless eyes on the plate before it made its way to the hardening section without a missing plate number.
Don

You remember correctly. The four plate power press required four flat plates on the press. For this issue, plates 21320, 21321, 21322 and 21323 were on the same press (though there is some discrepancy in the BEP records which we do not need to bother with). If the pressman had placed the plates in sequential order, plate 21323 should have a plate 21322 set-off on its back. Obviously there was no rule to the sequence of the four plates.

drkohler. Thank you!

To continue the tangent, here is the perforated version also from the same plate, but with plate number F21322 on the reverse, demonstrating the randomness of placing the plates on the press. The difference in these two blocks is not surprising since the imperforate Farley version.was a later print run.


The connection to the OP's block is that the set-off plate number faintly visible on the reverse side identifies one of the Webster plates which the front side is *not* printed by.

John,
I have never seen the 'F' included as part of a plate number. My understanding is that the F would be punched into the plate after it receive the plate number and occurs in various positions.
Don

It was easier than saying "upper right block of six with plate number and F" or "21323-UR". I agree they are applied separately to the plate.

Learning something new every day. Thanks John.



The Hebert Plate Number Single Catalog lists the flat plate positions during this period as T F L R B, in other words shorthand F21322 or 21322-F would be the top right, T21322 or 21322-T would identify the top left, and so on. It sounds strange as I am describing it here, but it is a useful abbreviation. UL and UR are reserved for rotary plates where the plate number is truly in the corner and other cases where you can easily identify the position of the plate number.
Durland abbreviates the positions as TL and TR and says (prior to #548) "Flat plate stamps from here on have F in TR position unless otherwise noted."

Circling back around on this error, I just received the sheet back from APEX and it was certified as genuine, a "full pane of 100 with plate number omitted, unused, full original gum..."

Included with the APEX certificate was a page from "The United States Commemorative Stamps of the 20th Century" It had the following notation for the 725 Daniel Webster: "There was one minor printing variety. A small number of upper right panes were found without plate numbers. This was due to the blanket on the press not being in the proper position to give the needed pressure at this point."

Of course, they don't provide any valuation information. The text calls it a "minor printing variety", but also says it was a small number and only from one position on the plate. I have to think that not many full panes with this error survived.

I think I'll hang on to it awhile, then next time we decide to take a cruise, I'll reach out to some auction houses to see if there is any interest. <insert grin here>. Maybe it can cover the drink package <close grin>

Thanks to this community for your insights.

George

First thank you the follow up post on the outcome. The page quoted is from a book published nearly 9 decades ago (written by a relative to boot) which does show that plate number "issues" tend to be noticed and report ad John Becker noted. At this time I don't recall if I once knew this fact and it faded from memory or if I just now learned of it. In any case thank you for the information or refresher.

This does beg the issue of why such is not reported in Durland. A question I will ask of the Durland folks (USSS - United States Stamp Society publishes it).

Yes you made a good find, got it certified and should save it for yourself or the hobby. What is amazing is the fact it is still a full pane.

good

Half a plate #.

I have another example from this period without a plate number. It's a Scott 741, top right full pane of 50. It's been several months since I bought it and I guess I should run it thru PF or APEX for certification.