France Sc#86 Recto-Verso Print?

I would like to show you this example of France SC#86, the curiosity lies in its reverse, where within a pinkish color (I don't think it is faded from the cover, since it is very homogeneous and does not cross both sides of the stamp) the design of the obverse appears clearly defined, I have not seen anything similar in any other example of this series where the design is rarely partially visible on the reverse, never with such clarity without any need for backlighting... could it be a recto-verso print?

If you look at the lower left corner as seen from the back and the whole left border, you will see it only covers part of the back. So, it is not a characteristic of the paper. As long as the stamp floats image-side up during soaking from a red cover or with another stamp on a red piece of paper, only the back will turn pinkish.

Furthermore, the front has a slightly tinted appearance in a colour that will hide any pinkish discolouration.

Unfortunately, I do not think this is anything but the result of soaking when a red piece of paper was also in the container.

Recto-verso print. That would be "printed on both sides" in normal English. If it had been printed on both sides, the back would show the normal image, not the mirrored image.
There is not much reason to consider it is an offset that would perfectly and uniformly coincide with the printing on the front.

So, this, undoubtedly, is just translucency.

Well, regarding the pinkish color, let's assume it could have been acquired from the envelope; it's a very likely possibility... although I'm not entirely sure.
Regarding the recto-verso print, I don't think it necessarily has to be the front negative, as it could be the case of a blank print, or of stacking sheets on top of others with fresh ink. This wouldn't be the case, though, since if it were recto-verso, it would be due to absorption by the paper, I think.
I'm uploading a comparative photo of copies with different shades.

No. Recto-verso printing is what is done to print books. For stamps, it is called "printed on both sides." Negatives have absolutely nothing to do with recto-verso printing.
I do not know how you see a negative printing occurring. Either the ink is held by recesses or by the raised surface. What you suggest is that first one occurs and then the other. The only manner it could occur is intentional. If both printings occur from the front, you get a black rectangle, not the correct image. If it occurs from the back you get the reversal of the image again. One is the correct image, the other its negative reversed. That shows as a big, blurry mess. There is zero chance that occurred.




By definition, that is not a negative, but a blank print. To occur, someone prints the stamp, wipes the plate, and reprints the stamp. Now, unless that albino print has left an indentation (like an embossing), it is not possible to discern between this fabrication and a single, correct printing. I do not see an albino print.

It cannot be recto-verso printing when both printings occur on the same side of the stamp. Which, again, means the albino print would be reversed in relation to the image on the front of the stamp when looking at the back of the stamp.




What you describe is an offset, not recto-verso printing that requires printing on both sides of the sheet. An offset will show the same image on either side and when looking through the stamp.

Considering there is no trace of a partial print, the depth of the printing is quite uniform and there is not the slightest blurriness, the offset must coincide perfectly with the printing, be full, and be uniform. The probability of that happening is infinitely small.




Actually, it is the only way that the image would not be reversed. But you are correct that it is not recto-verso.




As for absorption of the paper: you appear to mean permeation of the ink. This is possible. As the ink must be absorbed by the paper not the be wiped off by the slightest touch of the stamp. However, the uniform appearance of the reversed image when looking at the back does not really support it. But it might be a combination of a high degree of absorption and thinner than usual paper that.

Recto-verso printing is printing on both sides as for books and has nothing to do with absorption of this kind.

If it's not recto-verso, or "printed on both sides." the effect is certainly impressive, as can be seen in the comparison.
If it's true, I didn't take the rotation into account; the idea is that the positions in the top photo would correspond to the one below...

No argument there. It is a very interesting example.

This is a variety found on the 1c, and many others values ..Sower stamps ect.
Recto-verso: Printing right side up on the front and reversed on the back of the same postage stamp. This is a transfer. This can occur, for sheets gummed before printing, when insufficiently dry ink adheres to the sheet underneath. Recto-verso can also result from operating the press without paper, causing the cylinder to be inked, which, by transfer, is deposited on the back of the next sheet.
Source: Academy of Philately

https://www.lemarchedutimbre.com/fo...e=273446&f=3

Thanks for the info...it's not easy to determine what happened to this specimen...Recto-verso could be a viable option.

Apparently, in French philately, recto-verso is used to refer to an offset. It is not printed but a secondary transfer.

Recto verso printing is something different. It is the technique for printing double sided used for books.

https://photocopieurs.be/en/blog/th...o-and-verso/