Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
It is French Guinea Scott #47 and the background color was apparently produced by a coating applied to the base paper. I'm making this assumption based on the fact that the entire stamp is covered with tiny irregular pockmarks, or indentations, where the color coating appears to be missing. most of these pockmarks show up with a bluish gray or white color in my scan. They are only noticeable via magnification, both from the front and the back. From the back, they appear to be tiny thin spots.
The Scott #44 from the same set is on orange-coated paper. It has a similar but less severe problem.
I believe these pockmarks must have been caused by uneven application of the color coating to the paper. Is there a more likely explanation?
Is this normal for these stamps or is it a serious condition issue that I need to describe? If the latter, what is the recommended way to describe this condition?
If this is a condition issue that needs to be identified and described, how do I value the stamp? Would this condition (using Michael#####'s excellent tool) be more closely associated with the multitude of tiny thin spots or the stamp's freshness or what?
Your comments and suggestions are appreciated!
Login to Like
this post
it sounds like the question is about valuing the stamp, not how the problem occurred, correct? if so, I'd see if I could compare your stamp to others. are the papers the same, the coverage the same? if this is typical, then i'd note that. If atypical, i'd note that too. if the latter, i'd look to see if the problem is caused by a production problem that might actaully cause the stamp to be MORE valuable (as an EFO) than its regular counterpart.
i am only giving generalities because I don't know the stamp itself
incidentally, for those looking for help with a stamp problem, please see the great text and image detail Thomas provides; it's a great model to emulate
David
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
11:41:36am
" ... How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper? ..."
As to "describe", the short answer is "Accurately".
For "value" the Scott listing might help, modified, plus or minus, by the issues Dave listed, but beyond that the interplay of the market forces, wholesale or retail, supply and demand apply. Unless you can find some valid recent comparable sales, it is a crapshoot.
Login to Like
this post
I have read elsewhere that in the early days of chalk coating papers, the layer (or coating) was rather thick and may have been applied too hot. This resulted in of 'puffing holes' in the surface of the coating.
Apparently, Argentina categorize this effect as TV or tizado varioloso (pock marked coating) and rank these in severity; TV 3 for the most pockmarked, to TV 1 for the least.
Could this be what you are seeing here? If this is so, perhaps this is normal for that issue.
Login to Like
this post
David, to clarify, I have multiple questions.
1. Out of curiosity, I am wondering if I am correct in identifying this as a coated stamp with defects in the coating or something else. Ningpo's comments re the TV (pock marked coating) sounds like what I'm seeing, but I'm unfamiliar with the Argentina reference.
2. Since I had never seen a reference to this type of problem, I had no idea how to value the stamp. Michael#####'s tool for evaluating stamps is a great tool in that it covers numerous defects that we may encounter, but this particular condition isn't included. Ningpo's reference to the ranking for TV may be the key if I can find anything online to confirm that TV is the problem I'm seeing on this stamp. Hopefully, there is an explanation for the "1" to "3" ranking somewhere.
I'd like to think this condition would make the stamp MORE valuable, but I'm doubtful! The fact that the orange-coated stamp in my set has a similar but less pronounced problem suggests to me that it may have been a fairly common paper production issue, but we'll see.
And thanks, David, for commending my image presentation.
Ningpo, It's interesting that you mention the thickness of the coating. In the case of this stamp, it is thick enough that the pockmarks show up as tiny thin spots from the back of the stamp when viewed toward a bright light. I'm hoping this is normal for this issue and won't detract from its value.
Charlie, the 2016 Scott value is $60.00. That is always my starting point. The key from that point is to determine the markdown due to defects, etc. That's where Michael#####'s tool usually comes in very handy. However, this particular defect, if it is considered as such, isn't addressed in Michael#####'s tool. So, I've got more research to do, but would still appreciate any further insight on the condition of this stamp.
Thanks, all!
Login to Like
this post
06:39:25pm
" ... Charlie, the 2016 Scott value is $60.00. That is always my starting point. The key from that point is to determine the markdown due to defects, etc ..."
That is certainly a valid way to proceed.
But it appears you are interested in a selling price, so I might start with seeing either what similar examples with or without the "pockmarks" are being offered for bids , or what buyers are willing to pay by actually bidding.
Then depending on further research into the marks, apply a discount or premium to either the offer or bid price.
If as sometimes happens similar stamps in relatively pristine condition are being bought and sold at a significant discount from the often ambiguous Scott listing, there may be no sense in spinning your wheels, or no profit, anyway. If the converse is true and actual sales are occurring at or over the Scotts listing, that is another thing.
Either procedure ought to yield the same result, but the one might be less labor intensive.
Login to Like
this post
There are several online discussions of the pockmarking/pitting/cratering of coated/surfaced stamp papers, but most are focused on a later period when the coating technology was probably more reliable. The clearest examples included in those discussions display tiny circular pits in the surface, and many other examples aren't very clear—at least as far as I can tell. Lin Yangchen has published a lengthy new paper at http://www.linyangchen.com/Malaya-postage-stamps. His are the best photographic examples I found of the pitting phenomenon, but they're later examples with the tiny round pits whereas my French Guinea Scott #47 has larger irregular areas of pitting. One British source said the coating of papers began in 1906, the year this stamp was issued. However, I don't know if that 1906 reference was for British stamps specifically or stamps generally. In any case, these coated French Guinea stamps must have been produced while the coating technology was in its infancy.
I have looked again at other stamps in this French Guinea set and there is a wide variation in the amount of pitting among the stamps with coated paper. The stamp I displayed above is the worst of the bunch. Of course it is the highest value in the set! In the Argentine ranking (TV1 to TV3) that Ningpo referenced, this stamp might rank TV4!
Login to Like
this post
For comparison, here is the same close-up for the 1fr (Scott #45) from the French Guinea set. It's appearance isn't at bad. The pitting appears to be less extensive, but I wonder how much that has to do with the difference between the base paper color and the coating color?
Login to Like
this post
I somehow doubt that a different base colour of a stamp would have any effect on the coating. This may have come about by using different batches of paper, processed at different times. As chalk coating was in its infancy, perhaps there were difficulties maintaining the optimum temperature of the mix from batch to batch.
Certainly your first example is an extreme example of the 'tizado varioloso' effect. From an image of a category 3 'TV' I have seen, yours is much more pronounced.
Like yourself perhaps, I cannot find any relevant information about paper coatings on French colony stamps.
Login to Like
this post
For those interested in this chalk coating matter, I'm posting another example, this time from Upper Senegal & Niger (Scott #17) instead of French Guinea. All three examples I've posted were scanned in the same type of clear page with a black hard paper back sheet. The black sheet tends to emphasize the spots/areas where the clay coating bubbled and left pock marks. Those pock marks appear grayish because the clay coating is missing in those areas and the black back sheet I used during scanning is showing through the stamp paper.
The first two examples were processed identically in Photoshop. This one may have been processed slightly differently, but that shouldn't have made much, if any, difference. This new example shows the least pock marking of the three examples.
I'm not sure what to make of the two dark gray/white spots near the left edge of the beard. They are pock marks in the coating, but the edges are more distinct and the dark gray color is inside those marks. (That dark gray color is not from the black backing sheet I used when scanning the stamp.) From the back of the stamp, when viewed in front of a bright light, these two marks look just like the spots/areas where the chalk coating is missing.
Login to Like
this post
Your enlarged image looks like insect damage. The depth of the pockets is determined by the size of their mouth parts.
I saw this once on the back of a stamp, where the gum was on the buffet menu....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
I'm working on preparing a few stamps for sale this fall, but this stamp presents a problem I hadn't encountered before.
It is French Guinea Scott #47 and the background color was apparently produced by a coating applied to the base paper. I'm making this assumption based on the fact that the entire stamp is covered with tiny irregular pockmarks, or indentations, where the color coating appears to be missing. most of these pockmarks show up with a bluish gray or white color in my scan. They are only noticeable via magnification, both from the front and the back. From the back, they appear to be tiny thin spots.
The Scott #44 from the same set is on orange-coated paper. It has a similar but less severe problem.
I believe these pockmarks must have been caused by uneven application of the color coating to the paper. Is there a more likely explanation?
Is this normal for these stamps or is it a serious condition issue that I need to describe? If the latter, what is the recommended way to describe this condition?
If this is a condition issue that needs to be identified and described, how do I value the stamp? Would this condition (using Michael#####'s excellent tool) be more closely associated with the multitude of tiny thin spots or the stamp's freshness or what?
Your comments and suggestions are appreciated!
Login to Like
this post
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
it sounds like the question is about valuing the stamp, not how the problem occurred, correct? if so, I'd see if I could compare your stamp to others. are the papers the same, the coverage the same? if this is typical, then i'd note that. If atypical, i'd note that too. if the latter, i'd look to see if the problem is caused by a production problem that might actaully cause the stamp to be MORE valuable (as an EFO) than its regular counterpart.
i am only giving generalities because I don't know the stamp itself
incidentally, for those looking for help with a stamp problem, please see the great text and image detail Thomas provides; it's a great model to emulate
David
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
24 Oct 2015
11:41:36am
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
" ... How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper? ..."
As to "describe", the short answer is "Accurately".
For "value" the Scott listing might help, modified, plus or minus, by the issues Dave listed, but beyond that the interplay of the market forces, wholesale or retail, supply and demand apply. Unless you can find some valid recent comparable sales, it is a crapshoot.
Login to Like
this post
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
I have read elsewhere that in the early days of chalk coating papers, the layer (or coating) was rather thick and may have been applied too hot. This resulted in of 'puffing holes' in the surface of the coating.
Apparently, Argentina categorize this effect as TV or tizado varioloso (pock marked coating) and rank these in severity; TV 3 for the most pockmarked, to TV 1 for the least.
Could this be what you are seeing here? If this is so, perhaps this is normal for that issue.
Login to Like
this post
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
David, to clarify, I have multiple questions.
1. Out of curiosity, I am wondering if I am correct in identifying this as a coated stamp with defects in the coating or something else. Ningpo's comments re the TV (pock marked coating) sounds like what I'm seeing, but I'm unfamiliar with the Argentina reference.
2. Since I had never seen a reference to this type of problem, I had no idea how to value the stamp. Michael#####'s tool for evaluating stamps is a great tool in that it covers numerous defects that we may encounter, but this particular condition isn't included. Ningpo's reference to the ranking for TV may be the key if I can find anything online to confirm that TV is the problem I'm seeing on this stamp. Hopefully, there is an explanation for the "1" to "3" ranking somewhere.
I'd like to think this condition would make the stamp MORE valuable, but I'm doubtful! The fact that the orange-coated stamp in my set has a similar but less pronounced problem suggests to me that it may have been a fairly common paper production issue, but we'll see.
And thanks, David, for commending my image presentation.
Ningpo, It's interesting that you mention the thickness of the coating. In the case of this stamp, it is thick enough that the pockmarks show up as tiny thin spots from the back of the stamp when viewed toward a bright light. I'm hoping this is normal for this issue and won't detract from its value.
Charlie, the 2016 Scott value is $60.00. That is always my starting point. The key from that point is to determine the markdown due to defects, etc. That's where Michael#####'s tool usually comes in very handy. However, this particular defect, if it is considered as such, isn't addressed in Michael#####'s tool. So, I've got more research to do, but would still appreciate any further insight on the condition of this stamp.
Thanks, all!
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
24 Oct 2015
06:39:25pm
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
" ... Charlie, the 2016 Scott value is $60.00. That is always my starting point. The key from that point is to determine the markdown due to defects, etc ..."
That is certainly a valid way to proceed.
But it appears you are interested in a selling price, so I might start with seeing either what similar examples with or without the "pockmarks" are being offered for bids , or what buyers are willing to pay by actually bidding.
Then depending on further research into the marks, apply a discount or premium to either the offer or bid price.
If as sometimes happens similar stamps in relatively pristine condition are being bought and sold at a significant discount from the often ambiguous Scott listing, there may be no sense in spinning your wheels, or no profit, anyway. If the converse is true and actual sales are occurring at or over the Scotts listing, that is another thing.
Either procedure ought to yield the same result, but the one might be less labor intensive.
Login to Like
this post
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
There are several online discussions of the pockmarking/pitting/cratering of coated/surfaced stamp papers, but most are focused on a later period when the coating technology was probably more reliable. The clearest examples included in those discussions display tiny circular pits in the surface, and many other examples aren't very clear—at least as far as I can tell. Lin Yangchen has published a lengthy new paper at http://www.linyangchen.com/Malaya-postage-stamps. His are the best photographic examples I found of the pitting phenomenon, but they're later examples with the tiny round pits whereas my French Guinea Scott #47 has larger irregular areas of pitting. One British source said the coating of papers began in 1906, the year this stamp was issued. However, I don't know if that 1906 reference was for British stamps specifically or stamps generally. In any case, these coated French Guinea stamps must have been produced while the coating technology was in its infancy.
I have looked again at other stamps in this French Guinea set and there is a wide variation in the amount of pitting among the stamps with coated paper. The stamp I displayed above is the worst of the bunch. Of course it is the highest value in the set! In the Argentine ranking (TV1 to TV3) that Ningpo referenced, this stamp might rank TV4!
Login to Like
this post
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
For comparison, here is the same close-up for the 1fr (Scott #45) from the French Guinea set. It's appearance isn't at bad. The pitting appears to be less extensive, but I wonder how much that has to do with the difference between the base paper color and the coating color?
Login to Like
this post
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
I somehow doubt that a different base colour of a stamp would have any effect on the coating. This may have come about by using different batches of paper, processed at different times. As chalk coating was in its infancy, perhaps there were difficulties maintaining the optimum temperature of the mix from batch to batch.
Certainly your first example is an extreme example of the 'tizado varioloso' effect. From an image of a category 3 'TV' I have seen, yours is much more pronounced.
Like yourself perhaps, I cannot find any relevant information about paper coatings on French colony stamps.
Login to Like
this post
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
For those interested in this chalk coating matter, I'm posting another example, this time from Upper Senegal & Niger (Scott #17) instead of French Guinea. All three examples I've posted were scanned in the same type of clear page with a black hard paper back sheet. The black sheet tends to emphasize the spots/areas where the clay coating bubbled and left pock marks. Those pock marks appear grayish because the clay coating is missing in those areas and the black back sheet I used during scanning is showing through the stamp paper.
The first two examples were processed identically in Photoshop. This one may have been processed slightly differently, but that shouldn't have made much, if any, difference. This new example shows the least pock marking of the three examples.
I'm not sure what to make of the two dark gray/white spots near the left edge of the beard. They are pock marks in the coating, but the edges are more distinct and the dark gray color is inside those marks. (That dark gray color is not from the black backing sheet I used when scanning the stamp.) From the back of the stamp, when viewed in front of a bright light, these two marks look just like the spots/areas where the chalk coating is missing.
Login to Like
this post
re: How do I describe and value a stamp printed on defective paper?
Your enlarged image looks like insect damage. The depth of the pockets is determined by the size of their mouth parts.
I saw this once on the back of a stamp, where the gum was on the buffet menu....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post