Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
The 20 cent pair is the worse of the two examples.
I've isolated the perf 'columns'; one of which I've modified, replacing the jubilee line (which is rather uneven) with a vertical block of colour to highlight it.
Can anyone describe how the process of line perforating could produce this result and indicate what sort of equipment was used around this time (1938 - 1952) by De la Rue? These images suggest to me that the perforating process was guided by hand (a very unsteady one).
Or was this just machine wear or malfunction?
   
   
Login to Like
this post
On December 29, 1940, the Germans bombed the De La Rue facility. Stamp production obviously was halted as a result of the attack. Perhaps the stamps were being perfed while the bombs were falling!
Seriously, in order to complete the print order for the stamps, it was necessary for De La Rue to make emergency arrangements. Several other printing firms were selected to complete the job.
The 8 cent stamps (Gibbons #144) was printed by Harrison & Sons.
I cannot find anything about production on the 20 cent (Gibbons #147), but we do have several members who are knowledgeable on Hong Kong stamps.
Login to Like
this post
Although the 8 cents was printed by Harrison & Sons, the 20 cents wasn't. So this isn't a common denominator. Production of the 20 cents was February 1946 by De la Rue.
Login to Like
this post
Ningpo,
These appear to me to be comb perforated (not line).
If you look closely, the deviations on top stamp and bottom stamp are the same (both sides).
The comb must be old and worn, or never was straight to begin with. I've seen this effect in other countries.
Jan
Login to Like
this post
Thank you simothecat. It looks like I was concentrating too much on the misalignment at the intersections.
I dug around and low and behold, I found two blocks with the same irregularity, occurring in the same position. The leftmost blocks are much more regular:
So this appears to have occurred on the right hand side of the pane. Without a left hand pane example though, it's not possible to say if this happened there as well.
The 15 cent was first issued in 1938 (1946 for the 20 cent). However, these dates can't be relied upon to indicate when this started to appear, as numerous reprints probably occurred.
It does though eliminate line-perforating, which I could find no reference to anyway.
Login to Like
this post
11:31:58pm
I notice that the gap between the perfs varies. This would suggest bent pins or replacement of one or more broken pins damaged, possibly during a bombing. In wartime experienced hands were likely in the African Desert chasing Rommel back and forth from Egypt almost to Tripoli. So someone may have made a repair as best he, or she, could.
At the end of the war the UK was exhausted and virtually bankrupt so it took several years to get things shipshape and Bristol style.
In fact I saw examples of pre-war equipment being used in the 1960s when in Belgium, Netherlands and even Germany newer equipment was being used. For example, on the London docks cargo cranes were chugging along the dockside that had boiler plates indicating construction in the 1920s, but Antwerp, Rotterdam and Bremerhaven docks had modern fast moving loading equipment.
Exactly who and what happened would probably require a person who worked at those plants seventy years ago.
Login to Like
this post
"I notice that the gap between the perfs varies. "
Yes you are right. I couldn't get an accurate match when measuring the perforations on the two pairs that I posted. As I use a Lindner Combi-box which uses pins to 'dock' with the corresponding perf measurement, I couldn't use it on the selvage side anyway.
I then tried out a digital perforation gauge too. This gave an 'average' reading for the RH side of 14.6 versus the intended 14. The horizontal perfs were close to 14.
"This would suggest bent pins or replacement of one or more broken pins damaged, possibly during a bombing."
Although the De la Rue works in London were destroyed December 1940, they quickly set up camp elsewhere. They were using line-perforators as early as February 1941, on their own printings that survived the bombing. Their ability to operate is somewhat confusing though:
They sub-contracted some print runs to other printers and in the case of one New Zealand reprint contract, took delivery of the stock from Waterlow & Sons and line-perforated the batch in-house. Yet, for another New Zealand reprint carried out by Waterlow, and delivered in September 1941, De la Rue then returned some 40,000 sheets in December, to be line-perforated by Waterlow.
Harrison and Sons were also involved in perforating some NZ reprint runs for De la Rue; again using line-perforating.
The original NZ printings, when everything was normal, where comb-perforated.
It would seem then that De la Rue could not operate their comb perforators at that time and could only cope with lower quantities of line-perforating operations.
So who perforated the Hong Kong 8 cent shown in the opening post? This was printed by Harrison & Sons in November 1941, for De la Rue. Yet these are comb perforated.
The fog thickens!
Login to Like
this post
In a way, it's not surprising that the equipment would have developed some defects in how it operated/functioned. With the constant bombing, having to quickly secure/move the machinery to safer (for a day or two) locations in between air raids, it's a wonder that they were able to get the equipment to work as good as it did.
Years ago I found out about this when I was researching all the perf variations in the KGVI definitives from Ceylon. Same situation with attempts to print those war-time stamps. I was thinking of trimming down my collection, and removing stamps with perf variations that had minor catalog numbers was one ides. When I found out the historical significance of the perf variations, I definitely kept them.
Login to Like
this post
That's good to see that you kept those variations. I do wonder if there is still more information to uncover.
I actually found a very brief reference Rare perforations & the German Luftwaffe, which confirms that these machines were damaged. Here's an extract:
"De La Rue’s normal comb perforating machines were all damaged as a result of the Luftwaffe’s bombing and in early 1941 a temporary line perforating machine was called into service. It was this machine which produced several of the rare line perforation varieties of the definitive issues of Bermuda, Fiji, Barbados and Kenya Uganda and Tanganyika."
Despite reading articles in my Hong Kong related reference books, stating that the KGVI issues have been intensively researched, I do wonder.
This isn't helped when Stanley Gibbons themselves are still not up to speed on some matters related to varieties and shades. The 2015 catalogue (Comm. & British Empire Stamps) has a revised listing for the KGVI post-war $10 issue; now including another shade and effectively renumbering it. That's 70 years after issue.
Despite the welcome revision, they appear to have mangled the new (and other related issue) catalogue values.
Login to Like
this post
I've just found something while sorting my Hong Kong bits and bobs, which I have never noticed before. These two pairs exhibit very erratic perforations; more so than anything else I own.
The 20 cent pair is the worse of the two examples.
I've isolated the perf 'columns'; one of which I've modified, replacing the jubilee line (which is rather uneven) with a vertical block of colour to highlight it.
Can anyone describe how the process of line perforating could produce this result and indicate what sort of equipment was used around this time (1938 - 1952) by De la Rue? These images suggest to me that the perforating process was guided by hand (a very unsteady one).
Or was this just machine wear or malfunction?
  Â
  Â
Login to Like
this post
06:19:26pm
re: Line perforation: Machine malfunction or operator inebriation?
On December 29, 1940, the Germans bombed the De La Rue facility. Stamp production obviously was halted as a result of the attack. Perhaps the stamps were being perfed while the bombs were falling!
Seriously, in order to complete the print order for the stamps, it was necessary for De La Rue to make emergency arrangements. Several other printing firms were selected to complete the job.
The 8 cent stamps (Gibbons #144) was printed by Harrison & Sons.
I cannot find anything about production on the 20 cent (Gibbons #147), but we do have several members who are knowledgeable on Hong Kong stamps.
Login to Like
this post
re: Line perforation: Machine malfunction or operator inebriation?
Although the 8 cents was printed by Harrison & Sons, the 20 cents wasn't. So this isn't a common denominator. Production of the 20 cents was February 1946 by De la Rue.
Login to Like
this post
08:20:13pm
re: Line perforation: Machine malfunction or operator inebriation?
Ningpo,
These appear to me to be comb perforated (not line).
If you look closely, the deviations on top stamp and bottom stamp are the same (both sides).
The comb must be old and worn, or never was straight to begin with. I've seen this effect in other countries.
Jan
Login to Like
this post
re: Line perforation: Machine malfunction or operator inebriation?
Thank you simothecat. It looks like I was concentrating too much on the misalignment at the intersections.
I dug around and low and behold, I found two blocks with the same irregularity, occurring in the same position. The leftmost blocks are much more regular:
So this appears to have occurred on the right hand side of the pane. Without a left hand pane example though, it's not possible to say if this happened there as well.
The 15 cent was first issued in 1938 (1946 for the 20 cent). However, these dates can't be relied upon to indicate when this started to appear, as numerous reprints probably occurred.
It does though eliminate line-perforating, which I could find no reference to anyway.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
21 Jan 2016
11:31:58pm
re: Line perforation: Machine malfunction or operator inebriation?
I notice that the gap between the perfs varies. This would suggest bent pins or replacement of one or more broken pins damaged, possibly during a bombing. In wartime experienced hands were likely in the African Desert chasing Rommel back and forth from Egypt almost to Tripoli. So someone may have made a repair as best he, or she, could.
At the end of the war the UK was exhausted and virtually bankrupt so it took several years to get things shipshape and Bristol style.
In fact I saw examples of pre-war equipment being used in the 1960s when in Belgium, Netherlands and even Germany newer equipment was being used. For example, on the London docks cargo cranes were chugging along the dockside that had boiler plates indicating construction in the 1920s, but Antwerp, Rotterdam and Bremerhaven docks had modern fast moving loading equipment.
Exactly who and what happened would probably require a person who worked at those plants seventy years ago.
Login to Like
this post
re: Line perforation: Machine malfunction or operator inebriation?
"I notice that the gap between the perfs varies. "
Yes you are right. I couldn't get an accurate match when measuring the perforations on the two pairs that I posted. As I use a Lindner Combi-box which uses pins to 'dock' with the corresponding perf measurement, I couldn't use it on the selvage side anyway.
I then tried out a digital perforation gauge too. This gave an 'average' reading for the RH side of 14.6 versus the intended 14. The horizontal perfs were close to 14.
"This would suggest bent pins or replacement of one or more broken pins damaged, possibly during a bombing."
Although the De la Rue works in London were destroyed December 1940, they quickly set up camp elsewhere. They were using line-perforators as early as February 1941, on their own printings that survived the bombing. Their ability to operate is somewhat confusing though:
They sub-contracted some print runs to other printers and in the case of one New Zealand reprint contract, took delivery of the stock from Waterlow & Sons and line-perforated the batch in-house. Yet, for another New Zealand reprint carried out by Waterlow, and delivered in September 1941, De la Rue then returned some 40,000 sheets in December, to be line-perforated by Waterlow.
Harrison and Sons were also involved in perforating some NZ reprint runs for De la Rue; again using line-perforating.
The original NZ printings, when everything was normal, where comb-perforated.
It would seem then that De la Rue could not operate their comb perforators at that time and could only cope with lower quantities of line-perforating operations.
So who perforated the Hong Kong 8 cent shown in the opening post? This was printed by Harrison & Sons in November 1941, for De la Rue. Yet these are comb perforated.
The fog thickens!
Login to Like
this post
12:59:03pm
re: Line perforation: Machine malfunction or operator inebriation?
In a way, it's not surprising that the equipment would have developed some defects in how it operated/functioned. With the constant bombing, having to quickly secure/move the machinery to safer (for a day or two) locations in between air raids, it's a wonder that they were able to get the equipment to work as good as it did.
Years ago I found out about this when I was researching all the perf variations in the KGVI definitives from Ceylon. Same situation with attempts to print those war-time stamps. I was thinking of trimming down my collection, and removing stamps with perf variations that had minor catalog numbers was one ides. When I found out the historical significance of the perf variations, I definitely kept them.
Login to Like
this post
re: Line perforation: Machine malfunction or operator inebriation?
That's good to see that you kept those variations. I do wonder if there is still more information to uncover.
I actually found a very brief reference Rare perforations & the German Luftwaffe, which confirms that these machines were damaged. Here's an extract:
"De La Rue’s normal comb perforating machines were all damaged as a result of the Luftwaffe’s bombing and in early 1941 a temporary line perforating machine was called into service. It was this machine which produced several of the rare line perforation varieties of the definitive issues of Bermuda, Fiji, Barbados and Kenya Uganda and Tanganyika."
Despite reading articles in my Hong Kong related reference books, stating that the KGVI issues have been intensively researched, I do wonder.
This isn't helped when Stanley Gibbons themselves are still not up to speed on some matters related to varieties and shades. The 2015 catalogue (Comm. & British Empire Stamps) has a revised listing for the KGVI post-war $10 issue; now including another shade and effectively renumbering it. That's 70 years after issue.
Despite the welcome revision, they appear to have mangled the new (and other related issue) catalogue values.
Login to Like
this post