Cameo Effect On US Stamps

I'm starting a new thread because I didn't want to cast the other one into oblivion with this topic, but I think it deserves attention since I haven't heard anyone talk about cameo effect in detail relative to US classic stamps. I have seen some describe the 1875 Special Printings with such a diagnostic that can be found on the reverse, but nothing more than the basic use of the term.

I want to break down what cameo effect is for those that don't know.
It is mostly used to describe proof coins, where the devices are frosty in contrast to smooth, mirrorlike fields.
For coins, the word 'cameo' always describes the same situation in which the coin is struck from freshly prepared dies.
Here is a 1965 SMS half dollar that exhibits prooflike qualities:


But concerning philatelic pieces, the word is used to imply an accentuation of the "bust", letters, or any other design elements which can come from different situations.

Example 1) Cameo is used to describe the embossing of the design elements, as seen in the Great Britain Royal Cameo Scrapbook.


Example 2) Taken from an explanation by Zebraman, Cameo effect is used to describe the "ivory heads" on the reverse of some SG8s if there were a good deal of prussiate of potash used in the ink.


Personally I've seen stamps that have a "cameo-like effect" on the reverse that resemble both of the situations mentioned above.
Here is a 65 with a cameo-like effect that I believe is caused by a highly fugitive ink.


Other good example that resembles the "ivory heads" are the varnish ink varieties found in US classic stamps from 19th century essays and even up to the 1920s.

And I've also seen "cameo-like effect" because of an unintentional embossing that appears on the back of stamps with exceptional design detail as shown here.


Philatelic cameo seems to be a "description" rather than one particular "circumstance" as it's used in the numismatic sense. So I'm curious as to what the experts mean when they say the Special Printings have a cameo effect.

I understand why the "Ivory Head" is described as a cameo effect, although, as the illustration shows, it is not completely correct. The portrait has been engraved, so, the bluing on the back can occur within the portrait up to some degree. And, in the example, it clearly shows in the hair that has denser line engraving than the face.

What I do not understand is, how a stamp, held up so it shows more or less transparency that appears to be caused by the thickness of the paper, would illustrate a cameo effect.

Not buying it.

My apologies. I originally took a picture from an angle I thought best represented it's true color. I know how sensitive the topic of color can be for this issuance so I just did it like that before. Here's a picture of it on my leg with light coming directly down on it.



I compared it with the ivory head because you can see the brownish color blurred around the design on the front of the stamp much like you can see the blue faintly around the front-facing design of the sg8. Seemed logical to imply that the ink is highly fugitive on this one as well.
And the deeper the ink is on the front, the more brownish it is on the reverse, etc. etc.

Sorry NSK, but I'm still confused. I thought "cameo" was the word used to describe what is basically the silhouette of the bust being surrounded by the highly fugitive prussiate of potash added to the ink. Do you mean to say that SG8s with ivory heads, despite being described as cameo, are not technically what the word should imply when pertaining to stamps?

For coins it's very clear what the word means. But for stamps, I'm still trying to understand it from the technical standpoint.

I will say that I am curious as well.

The title of this thread indicates "US stamps", and the main, if not only place I hear "cameo" used consistently, for US, is with regard to advertising covers, such as the one I just posted. The ad is embossed and is referred to as a cameo.

I have not heard cameo used for US stamps -- but that does not mean there isn't some scenario of which I'm not aware.

Below British stamps show a cameo based on Mary Gillick's coinage head.



Your post is the first reference to a cameo in relation to the British line-engraved "ivory heads" I have seen.

In the example you post, you can see that large parts of what would be the cameo are not white, but blued. You must ignore the bluing in the portrait but not around it for it to be a cameo. It is a highly selective way of looking at the prussiate of potash permeating the paper. These parts are where the engraving is deep, and the lines are denser than in the face. Although I see the similarities, I, also, see differences.

As I wrote: I can understand why 'cameo' is used to describe what the ivory head looks like. It is helpful for someone who does not know what an ivory head is. But it does not make a cameo effect.

Wikipedia offered this at the beginning of its comments on the word "cameo:"
Cameo (/#712;kæmio#650;/) is a method of carving an object such as an engraved gem, item of jewellery or vessel. It nearly always features a raised (positive) relief image; contrast with intaglio, which has a negative image.

Since the style of engraving for the U.S. stamps of 1861 is intaglio, it is curious to me to see you discussing some examples as "cameo." What authoritative source is leading you to that? Special cases perhaps?


BTW how do you distinguish "silhouette" and "cameo"?

Coins yes. Stamps never heard of it.

Here is another Wikipedia quote:




Cameo is used for British stamps, but not referring to any effect. The UK does not have to print the country's name. The portrait of the monarch is sufficient. For Queen Elizabeth stamps, there is the silhouette by David Gentleman and the cameo by Mary Gillick.

A cameo effect is a new phenomenon. And very doubtful to occur in the images shown by OP, that are the British ivory head, but only partially, and translucency of US stamps.




I only saw that description in the OP. I have never seen it used in relation to "ivory heads."

NSK- That makes sense now. Thank you for differentiating between the two very clearly and specifically. I've seen members on here and other forums comment on the "cameo" of ivory heads and even classical US stamps, but I suppose the majority of them are using the word to describe what they see rather than defining what it is. So a "cameo-like effect" soon turns into just "cameo" as per description alone.
A coin is often seen to have "proof-like" qualities, but it does not mean it is a proof coin.

Essayk- Just like you, I was curious when seeing people use the word to describe what is just a silhouette, so I did a quick search and found that it was occasionally used by some members to describe a high contrast between the bust and design elements. I don't fault them for that because it seemed obvious in how they were choosing to use the word, much like how "contrast" is the main component of expertizing a cameo coin rather than its protrusion of elements. Otherwise all coins should just be called "cameo".

But what really fascinated me (and made me start this thread) is when wtcrowe used the word in this forum as a necessary condition for what the reverse of a Special Printing should look like.
https://goscf.com/t/60890&SearchTerms=Cameo


This is amazing. He is using absolute definitive language to describe what he sees, and I am sure he has seen many of the Special Printings so I trust him on it. I just wanted to venture further into that topic and understand what it really means.

Bump.
I've kept my eyes peeled and located another 65 with a "reverse silhouette", even heavier than before. Now I can confirm that it is caused by the ink, since there are ink splatters on the reverse on top of the gum, and those are not hurting the paper because they are not coming in direct contact with it.



The paper is course, thin, brittle, and shiny. It was very difficult to get a scan or picture that represented the color that I see, but the one above closely represents what I see on the stamp. I thought it was strange how the ink splatter on the reverse above the gum looked less brown than the ink on the front. Then I realized that the browned paper around the ink causes a kind of illusion where you're tricked into thinking the ink is browner than it is.

You can notice this when zooming in.

It is most likely also why it is difficult to get a picture of the color that you think the ink is, because the camera and scanner are naturally focusing on the more saturated colors of the ink that are camouflaged (to the naked eye) by the browned paper.

The next pic I put a light right above it. I think it doesn't help because the paper is too glossy.
The pics after have light coming from the side.



I think it's very helpful to have the ink on the reverse that hasn't degraded the paper. Whatever this color is, I think is the true color of the original stamp.

The green paper proprietary stamps often have this effect around the vignette. Also the special printings of the postage due stamps have it around the numerals.

You are right! I looked up some certified examples on hipstamp and it does show a distinct silhouette,

However, these are on soft paper, so it may not be for the same reason.

Revenuecollector, you have access to a special printing collection right? Could I ask, do the soft and hard paper banknote SP exhibit the same thing on the reverse, or perhaps only the soft papers?

And another question if anybody could answer: are there any regular issue PD stamps with a silhouette on the reverse like the special printing above? I ask because there is little mention of this anywhere.