Difference Between Printer's Waste And Expensive Errors

thank you all for the many answers, interesting to read (which I also say already here for the other answers to come).

If I had to choose between the following two auction objects (let's say for free, and not thinking about the value for the future because of maybe changing definitions), I would take the first one which is worth 300 USD and not the second which sold for 47.000 USD :).

(just two examples that I found first when searching there for printer's waste, for me personally, double printing or on reverse would be more fascinating than perforation errors)

example 1
https://www.siegelauctions.com/powe...ficateGrade=

example 2
https://www.siegelauctions.com/powe...ficateGrade=

And you point is?

Yes, but you are muddying the waters, perhaps purposely. The first example is not printers waste. As a BEP product, if printer's waste, there would be an investigation, criminal, as to determine the thief or theft method.

The second was a plate proof which is not normally sold. And the price is affected by both the condition and indications it may have been intended for destruction. As a plate proof, it would not be found in the front of the catalog under issued stamp listings, no matter the source.

I am only interested in this topic. I neither have any stamp as candidate nor had ever any problem with any auction. Just out of interest. Perhaps I make errors (or writer's waste) too.

The first example's description: [...] "unlisted in Scott which might call this printer's waste"

The second example's description: " there was concern that it could be printer's waste [...] "

So in both cases there was first the thought about printer's waste.
My point: How much evidence do we need to say it is printer's waste or not? I guess there is not a whole court case for each known stamp error or printer's waste.

As said, I am just interested in this apparently interesting topic and want to learn.

To get away from the perhaps not best examples: If I would find today an inverted center of an unknown example, who would have to prove what exactly?

sheetguy & philazilla - I am talking about things like the 18c flag coil which was only issued as individually packaged single rolls (and thus imperf blocks have to be waste) and not about more recent coils that were issued in "sticks" (stacks of rolls) that are mostly slit apart but held loosely together by small bridges, but a few were found that were not slit and thus block errors.

Shouldn't t his thread be in the EFO category and not the Main category?

IMO the 1995 Nixon error stamp perfectly encapsulates the gray area between waste and error as issued and discovered through normal channels.

https://www.linns.com/news/us-stamp...nter-s-waste

Interesting article, thank you.
I understand a bit now the topic for the well known errors. But I guess not for all errors and printer's waste stamps (how many are there in Scott, hundreds?) there is a long history with documents and people remembering how it happened. Nevertheless there is always quite a strict difference between the two definitions, like it would be absolutely clear what they are. Still not to me :).

I know that theoretical questions are always a bit difficult. But to understand the terms' definitions really, I would just create the idea that I found (I didn't) an inverted center stamp, no better: two of them side by side in an old album.

- 1901 5c Pan-American
- 1978 2$ Kerosin Table Lamp

To make it easier and more realistic, I would perhaps have found not only one stamp each, but just a complete sheet of both.

Of course they would be a great find and get a lot of attention at an auction, but the money is not my point.

a) Would they be errors or printer's waste, if neither for the one nor the other there is any prove?
b) Would it be another story if they were used? (well not sheets then)

I assume you are refering to the CIA invert, in which case, this was known to have been sold to employees of the CIA, meaning it was actually sold, rather than "stolen" from a bin. The CIA later reclaimed most of the stamps as they had been responsible for purchasing them.

Hello - no :) I am still trying to not consider any known examples, but just my new examples where no information would be known.

I don't get your point. You are asking if completely made up stamps that do not exist are real errors or printer's waste? Well, you've made them up, they can be whatever you want. The real inverted 1901 stamps exist as genuine errors of 1 cent and 2 cent, and intentionally printed 4 cent, and the 1 cent and 2 cent were actually sold, while the 4 cent was not. The CIA invert is a genuine error that was sold.

I won't make any stamps my own :). Just try to understand what in the following situation would be the answers:

How about coil waste and sheet waste U.S. stamps? These were originally web-fed rotary press stamps where (faulty) end parts were removed off of the web roll after printing, gumming and drying (as if they were sheets/panes) and sent to a sheet-fed perforator instead of a web-fed perforator.

As you mention sheet waste and if you allow, before we continue :).
Is there any overview what Canadian stamps have been printed on Stickney rotary? In Unitrade I only see this rarely and only as small information, not sure if it covers all.
And: Is the design size of Canada 164 (sheet) and 164ai (booklet) and other similar rotary stamps (sheet vs booklet) of that time always the same? (indeed I saw long time ago your interesting topic about the 164 sheet/booklet waste, but not sure about the sizes)

PS: Ok, I started reading a bit in this topic and need more time to ask better questions about Canadian dry vs. wet vs. flat vs. rotary :).
(Listing from you: https://goscf.com/t/50076#432358)
After all this here was more about general printer's waste vs. error stamps...

jogil - you are talking about a completely different animal - those were not thrown out, they were merely left overs that were later processed.

Join the EFO Collector's Club https: //www.efocc.org/




Make a new subject thread.




The 1901 inverts are well known and would have resulted in the manner of the other 1901 inverts.

Same with the $2 lamp, trust me, the $2 and $5 were checked when the $1 as reported.

In both cases the question first asked is where did you get them. Front door, back door or side door? Back door is stolen stock and misdirected from destruction printer's waste. Front door is normal over the counter sale and the side door is officially approved disbursement usually via a trade and can include worker's record copies of proofs/essays.

You want honest to god printer's waste which was marked for culling and no up to the quality of what should be issued? Just look at what was released during WWII.

However you are asking about printer's waste generally but giving example from likely the best recorded production and distribution system which is nothing like many, many other country's stamp production.

As to recognized US EFOs there are at least 82 different groups.

Is this what you are pushing to hear? The difference is clear at times and for others it is a learned judgement call?

For you, you say there is no interest in money, only knowledge. For you then just flip a coin, heads printer's waste, tails, not printers waste. Then keep any you find which is given to you for free, sine money is irrelevant. See anything produced not up to issue quality is waste, printer's waste, the question really is was it noticed or unnoticed, or noticed but overlooked during culling.

You referred to a Seigel listing for the piece of plate proof of the first BEP series. Seigel was misleading in their comments. Scoot Catalog company would not declare it as good or as printer's waste. What Scoot would do is review the expertizing opinions and see if then the material fits the editorial standards for inclusion.

You are mixing terms of art and common every day terms. I have directed you to the EFOCC twice in this tread and referenced a periodically updated book on US Errors. There is where you will find basic information you are just not recognizing as basic. And to that, I say as gently as possible, wearing my teaching hat which shows over 5 decades of wear:

See: Dunning–Kruger effect

The 5 Stages of Learning are:

1. Unconscious Incompetence
2. Conscious incompetence
3. Conscious competence
4. Unconscious competence
5. Reflective Competence