What we collect!

 

Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps



What we collect!
What we collect!


Asia/China : Hong Kong watermarks

 

Author
Postings
sheepshanks
Members Picture


25 Mar 2015
05:16:21pm
Spent an hour yesterday trying to find watermarks on the earlier QE2 issues and while some were obvious had great difficulty with the sideways watermarks. Some that should have had upright or sideways just could not be seen.
Is there another way to distinguish the printings, whiter paper perhaps?
I was using Ronsinol in a black tray, do the specialist fluids make it easier?
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Vic
Like
Login to Like
this post
Ningpo
Members Picture


25 Mar 2015
05:52:36pm
re: Hong Kong watermarks

When I get the time, I'll look into this further. I seem to recall that different paper thicknesses were used in one of the issues. In addition, both PVA and gum arabic were used; PVA should be whiter.

It is possible that the thicker paper may be the problematic ones. If that is so, then maybe that will indicate which watermark would have been used. But then again, little is straight forward with Hong Kong QEII watermarks.

Like
Login to Like
this post
sheepshanks
Members Picture


25 Mar 2015
06:04:31pm
re: Hong Kong watermarks

Thanks Ningpo, it was the 1962/68 and 1973/75 issues that gave me the most problem and I think it was actually the thinner paper that was hardest to determine.
Possibly because it was so thin?
Vic.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Ningpo
Members Picture


26 Mar 2015
08:18:51pm
re: Hong Kong watermarks

I'm afraid there is no 'formula' that can be used to differentiate between the two watermarks, based on paper thickness or gum.

The later printings between 1968 and 1973 are actually a complete mess. This can be partly attributed to the printers, who at one stage printed both upright and sideways watermarked papers in the same print runs.

The change to PVA gum from gum arabic began in September 1968, starting with the $2 reprint. It would seem that all values changed over by March 1970.

Printings from February 1970 used a much whiter, wood free paper. This is supposedly quite noticeable and gave a sharper printing image.

Just prior to this, "some values" were printed on thicker paper (from 0.00375 inch to 0.0048 inch).

Then in 1971, glazed papers were introduced but this was done in stages; the $10 of course being extremely scarce in both mint and used state.

From 1968 there were seven separate changes in watermark, gum and paper resulting in 80 variations of those three changes on seventeen values, plus a further 18 varieties of inverted and reversed watermarks.

Now that's a specialist collector's field if ever there was one!





Like
Login to Like
this post
sheepshanks
Members Picture


26 Mar 2015
11:16:54pm
re: Hong Kong watermarks

Thanks for the comprehensive answer, guess I'll stick with the ones I can identify and purchase to fill in the gaps where necessary.
Thought at first I was doing something wrong or had gone blind without realizing. Maybe next time I'll set up the camera and photograph the tray and study them on screen later where I can enlarge if needed.
Thank you again.
vic

Like
Login to Like
this post
Ningpo
Members Picture


27 Mar 2015
03:58:41am
re: Hong Kong watermarks

Vic,

If you have an anglepoise lamp, try holding the stamp with tongs close to it and move the stamp to different angles. This can work but not always.

Like
Login to Like
this post
cdj1122
Members Picture


Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..

19 Oct 2015
12:35:33pm
re: Hong Kong watermarks

" ... Possibly because it was so thin? ..."

I'd say probably thinness contributes to the problem you encountered.
Watermarks are created by affixing an emblem or symbol to the dandy roll screen when the paper is compressed during the end stage of the manufacturing process.
Where there is a watermark, the paper will be consequently even thinner.
The thickness of the water mark can only be a small percentage of the thickness of the paper. Thus the thickness of the watermark pressed into thicker paper can be slightly thicker and easier to see.
Of course there could also be other factors pertaining to the material the paper is constructed from.

Like
Login to Like
this post

".... You may think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you think you heard is not what I thought I meant. .... "
Ningpo
Members Picture


19 Oct 2015
08:14:51pm
re: Hong Kong watermarks

"Of course there could also be other factors pertaining to the material the paper is constructed from."



This seems to be true. Not so much on the issues Sheepshanks mentioned but on some of the coloured paper issues from KGV. In particular, the two watermark types on the Hong Kong overprinted with CHINA series:

The 50 cent on emerald paper and the $1 on blue paper using the later Script watermark (1922-27) are almost impossible to detect. This leads me to wonder whether the paper pulp was different.

Perhaps this also applies to other Commonwealth countries that used the green, blue and yellow papers.
Like
Login to Like
this post
        

 

Author/Postings
Members Picture
sheepshanks

25 Mar 2015
05:16:21pm

Spent an hour yesterday trying to find watermarks on the earlier QE2 issues and while some were obvious had great difficulty with the sideways watermarks. Some that should have had upright or sideways just could not be seen.
Is there another way to distinguish the printings, whiter paper perhaps?
I was using Ronsinol in a black tray, do the specialist fluids make it easier?
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Vic

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
Ningpo

25 Mar 2015
05:52:36pm

re: Hong Kong watermarks

When I get the time, I'll look into this further. I seem to recall that different paper thicknesses were used in one of the issues. In addition, both PVA and gum arabic were used; PVA should be whiter.

It is possible that the thicker paper may be the problematic ones. If that is so, then maybe that will indicate which watermark would have been used. But then again, little is straight forward with Hong Kong QEII watermarks.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
sheepshanks

25 Mar 2015
06:04:31pm

re: Hong Kong watermarks

Thanks Ningpo, it was the 1962/68 and 1973/75 issues that gave me the most problem and I think it was actually the thinner paper that was hardest to determine.
Possibly because it was so thin?
Vic.

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
Ningpo

26 Mar 2015
08:18:51pm

re: Hong Kong watermarks

I'm afraid there is no 'formula' that can be used to differentiate between the two watermarks, based on paper thickness or gum.

The later printings between 1968 and 1973 are actually a complete mess. This can be partly attributed to the printers, who at one stage printed both upright and sideways watermarked papers in the same print runs.

The change to PVA gum from gum arabic began in September 1968, starting with the $2 reprint. It would seem that all values changed over by March 1970.

Printings from February 1970 used a much whiter, wood free paper. This is supposedly quite noticeable and gave a sharper printing image.

Just prior to this, "some values" were printed on thicker paper (from 0.00375 inch to 0.0048 inch).

Then in 1971, glazed papers were introduced but this was done in stages; the $10 of course being extremely scarce in both mint and used state.

From 1968 there were seven separate changes in watermark, gum and paper resulting in 80 variations of those three changes on seventeen values, plus a further 18 varieties of inverted and reversed watermarks.

Now that's a specialist collector's field if ever there was one!





Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
sheepshanks

26 Mar 2015
11:16:54pm

re: Hong Kong watermarks

Thanks for the comprehensive answer, guess I'll stick with the ones I can identify and purchase to fill in the gaps where necessary.
Thought at first I was doing something wrong or had gone blind without realizing. Maybe next time I'll set up the camera and photograph the tray and study them on screen later where I can enlarge if needed.
Thank you again.
vic

Like
Login to Like
this post
Members Picture
Ningpo

27 Mar 2015
03:58:41am

re: Hong Kong watermarks

Vic,

If you have an anglepoise lamp, try holding the stamp with tongs close to it and move the stamp to different angles. This can work but not always.

Like
Login to Like
this post

Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
19 Oct 2015
12:35:33pm

re: Hong Kong watermarks

" ... Possibly because it was so thin? ..."

I'd say probably thinness contributes to the problem you encountered.
Watermarks are created by affixing an emblem or symbol to the dandy roll screen when the paper is compressed during the end stage of the manufacturing process.
Where there is a watermark, the paper will be consequently even thinner.
The thickness of the water mark can only be a small percentage of the thickness of the paper. Thus the thickness of the watermark pressed into thicker paper can be slightly thicker and easier to see.
Of course there could also be other factors pertaining to the material the paper is constructed from.

Like
Login to Like
this post

".... You may think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you think you heard is not what I thought I meant. .... "
Members Picture
Ningpo

19 Oct 2015
08:14:51pm

re: Hong Kong watermarks

"Of course there could also be other factors pertaining to the material the paper is constructed from."



This seems to be true. Not so much on the issues Sheepshanks mentioned but on some of the coloured paper issues from KGV. In particular, the two watermark types on the Hong Kong overprinted with CHINA series:

The 50 cent on emerald paper and the $1 on blue paper using the later Script watermark (1922-27) are almost impossible to detect. This leads me to wonder whether the paper pulp was different.

Perhaps this also applies to other Commonwealth countries that used the green, blue and yellow papers.
Like
Login to Like
this post
        

Contact Webmaster | Visitors Online | Unsubscribe Emails | Facebook


User Agreement

Copyright © 2024 Stamporama.com