France What Is A Metallique Color?

Germanstamps.net is very useful. The site is the work of PostmasterGS. He is a member of this community. However, also for that site the caveat is that what you see, likely, will not be what it looks like.

I am not aware of any French site of that type. All I know is that another member of this site, GeoffHa, is very experienced when it comes to French stamps. He may have an idea how best to identify the metallique colours.

I recommend this page https://stampsmarter.org/learning/G..._colors.html to understand why for most collectors trying to ID stamps by color is tilting at windmills. Seeing colors is a subjective sensory perception; imagine trying to ID stamp gum by taste. Yet, people seem sure they can ID a stamp by what color it looks to them. Additionally, ambient lighting has a huge impact on how we see colors.
And lastly, adding digital imaging as another layer of confusing variables is the last thing that is needed. Color experts have large reference collections for each stamp, have developed a good color eye, and control their ambient lighting.

Here is a tool that gives you an idea of just how much ambient lighting impacts how we see a color on a stamp
https://stampsmarter.org/learning/G...lorTool.html
Don

The french semeuse (paper B, 1908,1909) stamp is a good example of color differences.Between blue,dark blue and Bleu metallique ; the difference is very small..The metallique color has a more bright look to it because of the paper..(type B paper very white).

https://semeuse25cbleu.net/a-propos...-millesimes/

Above is another 'almost never discussed' digital imaging variable, the exact same postal card scanned twice on the exact same scanner with the exact same settings.

The only difference?

One was scanned with scanner lid open, and the other was scanned with the scanner lid closed.

I do not recall ever seeing a digital image which lists the variables that were 'in play' to generate the image(s). Yet we are supposed to trust different digital images to ID colors?
Don

You're very kind, NSK, but my ability with colours and shades is perhaps even lower than with watermarks!

Thank you one and all for the advice, opinion, and suggestion.

If I can nudge the conversation to a related subject: I would have assumed that when a specialty catalogue identifies different shades that they are in fact different colors, which is to say different inks. NSK has pointed out that a different shade could be a result of a re-engraved plate, with deeper grooves. When whoever it is that decides that there are, say three different "official" shades of a stamp, how are they determining that? What is the criteria?

People who work with ink, paint, and color theory know that the term 'shade' means a hue (or color) + black (hence the term 'shade'). But lay people use the term 'shade' to mean any color (in the same hue family or not). 'Tint' is a hue(color) + white.

Technically, anything that adds white or black (including underlying paper or application of ink) could be said to change the 'shade' or 'tint'. This nomenclature begins the confusion, adding on top of this is the fact that catalog color (hue) names are also not standardized.

Above all of this is the fact that colors change over a relatively short period of time. Yet some folks think that the color they see on a hundred-year-old stamp today is the same as it was when the ink was applied. No ink, paint or even pure pigment is stable over time. A pierce of iron will change color over time, why would someone think that a piece of inked paper would not?
Don

My field is Great Britain.

Stanley Gibbons has a specialised catalogue for the issues of kings Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI. For the first, many 'shades' are listed. For the post office no shades were used. Only the 1/2d of King Edward VII changed 'officially' from blue-green to yellow-green.

If you look at the listings by BB Stamps, you may find many other 'shades' that come with David Brandon certificates.

Similarly, the Connoisseur Catalogue lists shades for the Machins. The Deegam Handbook only lists changes in the official colour. Oddly, the Deegam Handbook may list a colour change that Connoisseur may not list, because only the 'official' name changed.

The Post Office decides what 'official' colours there are. Catalogue editors decide which 'shades' they list in their own catalogues.

If all GB collectors would decide to follow only the official colours identified by the Post Office, there will no longer be shades.

Edit: A Spaniard calls an apple manzana and understands his fellow Spaniard is talking about an apple, I shall use 'shades' as GB collectors will not know what I would mean with 'hue.' Collectors and technical people talk different languages.

I would have thought that by this point in history enough research would have been done to determine the dates a particular stamp was printed, the ink used each printing, when a plate was re-engraved, etc.

The Edward VII issues, for example: if the printer used the same ink and paper each printing, how does Gibbons come to the conclusion that there are different shades? Theoretically, environmental conditions aside, every stamp should age the same and essentially be the same shade/color/hue. On the other hand, if an ink was mixed to the same hue as previously used but with different components, that ink would age differently, and would then be a different shade/color/hue. I would think...

So what use are the catalogues, except to provide a relative market value? If one catalogue says that a particular stamp exists in only one color, another says that there are two shades, and a third lists even more, how is a collector meant to sort that out? Shouldn't those designations be based on some sort of history or, dare I say it, facts?

Which brings up another issue: If one were to take a stamp to an expert for authentication and that expert doesn't believe a certain shade exists but another does...

I'm not sure what to think about all this...

Perhaps, but of course, that's not how things played out. In Britain, there wasn't "the printer" but multiple printers. For the colonies and dominions, some things would be printed in Britain, and others locally. Sometimes in the same series.

During times of war, you might literally be at war with the country from which you procured your ink just six months earlier.

Stamp collectors care about all of this; governments largely didn't. As long as illiterate clerks could distinguish the 1d and the 8d under oil-lamp light, mission accomplished. No one went to prison because the pale crimson rose didn't exactly match the prior pinkish rose.

Each catalogue editor decides for his or her publication how much detail they have and how much space they have. Scott clearly has more information than they choose to include in their worldwide set, because they do include it in the Classic Specialized.

For a given Commonwealth stamp, Scott WW might list one color option, Scott Classic Specialized might list two or three, and Gibbons might list four. Then you pull out a Commonwealth Five Reigns and see seven options. It doesn't bother me at all. It's just more to look for.

If I may ask CJD, for the specialized catalgues, do we know what criteria Scott uses vs. Gibbons vs. someone else? Do we know why one lists two colors and others more?

There were several printings from different plates by all printers. The mixing of the ink was done manually. So, there will be variation in the colours used by each printer.

We do not. These are choices made by the catalogue editors.
Stanley Gibbons lists almost 20 'shades' for the George V 1/2d and 1d 'Royal Cypher' issue. And still you will find stamps that are 'in between' two of those. They do have a range of sample stamps printed by the printer using the ink used for printing the stamps they use for reference.

At the risk of trying the patience of the community:

We do not know why Scott might say there is only one shade of a particular stamp but Michel might say there are two and Gibbons might say three? There is no information as to how these decisions came to be made?

Scott isn't saying that there is only one. Scott is only listing one. In the worldwide catalogue. They may list more in the Classic Specialized.

A generalist won't care if the stamp is also found in three shades of metallic pea, and won't want to pay for a thirty-volume set with all of those listings across hundreds of thousands of stamps. Plenty of collectors just want face-different stamps.

Why does Big Blue not have a space for every stamp? It's not wrong. Choices. Compromises.