Great Britain Scott 116, Sg 205/205A

Breefmack USA, in my opinion your 4d, 4½d and 1s red-and-green are badly affected by soaking.

floortrader, in my opinion only your last stamp, with its nice 19 March 1902 cancellation, is unaffected by soaking.

NSK, in your beautiful set of unused stamps, the 1½d, 2d and 1s green look slightly faded to me, but your 4d, 4½d and 1s red-and-green are perfect. And by the way (for the information of beginners, not for experts like you) the ½d green is a different shade, because different inks were used for it (and two of the three inks weren't fugitive).

solomons_prayer, slight water damage makes the doubly fugitive green turn blue. More extensive water damage makes it turn yellow.

I still honestly can't see any significant variation of the green colour in undamaged 4d stamps. Is there any historical evidence that the ink was changed?

No they are not.

They a) are NHM, b) are exactly the same as 25 years ago, when I bought them, c) are from a reputable dealer that does not sell faded stamps.




It appears you are implying the other stamps that had a green head or duty plate should be the same 'shade.' That is completely impossible and not based on anything.
The ½d was printed in a blue-green colour. The early printings did have a pigment soluble in water. That is why you can find examples that are blue.




Four print runs using more than 20 head plates and you think they kept mixing the ink with computers? Those are quite a number of ink batches, each mixed by eye and used on plates that varied in depth.
Look at the preceding "Lilac and greens" how they varied.

Thank you very much PJR. Now that I know that the ink of this series is very fugitive, is it probably best to not soak them at all, even briefly? People would have had to of soaked them off the cover, so is this the reason that most used examples are faded?

I kind of want to soak the blue one a bit more now to watch it turn yellow

NSK, that's very neat! I'm just learning about the Somerset House printings as per your suggestion. The colors on this one are "bright", rather than "deep", however.. so do you think this is also an effect of water damage? The colors do appear to be washed around the edges of the design.

On the same vein of thinking, and this is just meant to be a quick reference rather than to derail the topic, but I have this US #302 that is on different paper and has a much brighter shade than other 302s. I believe it comes from a stock that was created for the Special Printings of "PHILIPPINES" overprinted stamps that share the same characteristics. Interestingly enough, these were made at around the same year as the Somerset House examples, and share similar differences.

That would be very interesting to see a green lose its yellow to become blue and, therafter, its blue to become yellow.

Your stamp is either a De La Rue stamp on chalk-surfaced paper, or a Somerset House stamp. If the month in the date17 ??? (19)11 is August or later, it, likely, is a Somerset House stamp.

The colour has run. I am not very sure the reddish appearance of the purple is wholy due to water damage, or original. If it is reddish purple, it would be a Somerset House printing. If it is a De La Rue printing, it must be a washed-out slate-purple that is known to come from a 1908 printing.

The whole impression is that of a De La Rue stamp. The colours I am perceiving suggest Somerset House. I doubt the month in the date stamp is later than July. This too points at De La Rue. However, with two printings in 1910 that were in a dull purple, that reddish appearance makes me doubt.

I had another look at my own stamps, and I do think it is a washed-out De La Rue stamp.




I am not familiar with US stamps. I do not know where the US got its pigments from, but it may not have been Germany. If not, I doubt the similarity is anything but a coincidence.