Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Login to Like
this post
Wow. That's quite a printing freak there. Looks overinked, but is there any hint of a double impression? Is there even such a thing for a rotary press stamp, or just flat plate? I'm thinking the latter.
Login to Like
this post
It's more than just over inking
The 25c is completely different
The plane is positioned wrong and has different details
There are differences in the letters - note the N & E
Not inking but a forgery
Login to Like
this post
Check the forgery section of the Scott US Specialized Catalog. It is not in my 2015 edition, but Scott has added more stamp to this section since then. If it's not in the catalog, send your picture to Scott and see if they want to see what you have for examination and possible addition to the catalog.
Login to Like
this post
I don't think it is a forgery or any kind of printing error but instead a stamp that has been altered, probably to waste some time in some one's very boring life. A relative comparison would be this 1869 3cent Locomotive. Someone has goofed around altering most of the aspects of the engine.
Micheal, I have never heard about a forgery section in the Scott U.S. specialty catalog.
Is it something new, I cannot find it in my 2012 catalog. It would certainly be a nice addition.
Login to Like
this post
Scott added the section in the 2013 edition.
The February 27, 2017 issue of Linns has an article on US forgeries/Counterfeits. It includes some information on the section in the catalog.
Login to Like
this post
There is a "Postal Counterfeits" section in my 2016 Scott Specialized. A quick check does not show any counterfeit of this stamp. That is not to say that this is not a counterfeit.
To me it looks like a problem with the printing of the stamp. An overinking combined with a paper problem. The paper may have been a bit moist. But probably more of an overinking problem with a overfull/dirty plate cleaning roller. The top margin of the stamp shows a smearing of the ink.
If it were a genuine(?) counterfeit, it would be a better copy.
George
I'd like to see a higher resolution scan of the "Air" letters and perhaps the upper line of the "funny" stamp.
Login to Like
this post
Using Pixelmator (similar to Photoshop, for Apple computers), I copied and pasted the image of the "good" stamp over the "forgery," then changed its opacity to 50%. It's hard to match them perfectly because the original image is a photograph rather than a scan, and one stamp is bowed more than the other, but it looks to me like the aircraft (a Boeing Stratocruiser, BTW) is in exactly the same place on each stamp, and all of the other elements toward the centre of each stamp seem identical as well, excepting the fuzziness of the stamp in question.:
It would be useful to see large hi-res scans of each stamp so more a precise comparison could be made. Is it a forgery? I dunno.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Login to Like
this post
My opinion is a EFO due to over inking. Not a counterfeit or forgery.
Don
Login to Like
this post
I agree with what Don said. It definitely looks like it has been over inked with a bit of smearing. This topic is mentioned in the Scott Catalog of Errors on U.S. postage stamps on page 215.
Jeremy
Login to Like
this post
Over inking and Under inking occurs when the solvent used to clean the plates wasn't allowed enough time to dry.
Login to Like
this post
The thing that bothers me with over-inking is that the "AIR MAIL" lettering is smudgy and looks as if it were overwritten by hand. If it were just over-inking, you wouldn't see the original lettering behind the overwrite, and the "font" of the larger letters wouldn't have serifs. The lettering would be consistent with the original, and would only be visible once, not twice. One clue to it having been handwritten over the original letters is if the ink bled through the paper to the back. I'm not convinced that it is over-inking, but think more that it was embellished by someone aftermarket.
Login to Like
this post
Anything is possible. This a definite candidate for expertise certificate.
Login to Like
this post
Hi all! Maybe this bottom image will help. The bottom 2 stamps came from an attached block of 6. This one is even more messed up and the bottom printing is really messy. Thanks for interest and help. Chris
Login to Like
this post
"...The bottom 2 stamps came from an attached block of 6.. This one is even more messed up and the bottom printing is really messy. Thanks for interest and help. Chris"
Ah, even more compelling evidence of over-inking.
Don
Login to Like
this post
If I may, why would over inking only occur within the text? I don't really see any evidence of it anywhere else on the stamps.
WB
Login to Like
this post
Okay. Now there is more evidence for the over-inking. Too bad the stamps are not still attached. Would be a better freak to show the transition.
Login to Like
this post
It appears it isn't just on the lettering;
the ship in the forefront, the bridge uprights, the top cables....
they all show the signs of the over-inking.
Interesting!
Thanks for posting!
Randy
Login to Like
this post
It does look like the effect is more dramatic where there are darker colors from heavier amounts of ink.
And Bob, I really likes your overlay technique, even if this wasn't a perfect specimen.
-Doug
Login to Like
this post
01:27:18pm
" ... it looks to me like the aircraft (a Boeing Stratocruiser, BTW) is in exactly the same place on each stamp, ..."
It certainly is a Boeing Stratocruiser. In 1949 or perhaps 1950 the school trip for my class was to Idlewild Airport where we were given a tour of a Stratocruiser. One thing that sticks in my mind is that it was a double decker with a circular staircase between passenger decks and the seats were very plush. It was probably created by overlaying the structural plans for one B-29 bomber over another. Idlewild Airport in New York City is now known as JFK International Airport.
The bridge shown in the stamp is the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as seen from somewhere near the Coast Guard base on Yerba Buena Island, and is often mistaken for the Golden Gate Bridge at the entrance to the bay.
The key is that the Bay Bridge towers look like three "X"s atop one another while the Golden gate looks like three "H"s stacked up.
A low value question on Jeopardy about that stumped an otherwise sharp player some years ago.
Login to Like
this post
and there you have it the final three from the block of 6.
Login to Like
this post
I'll try to avoid highjacking this thread to talk about the Stratocruiser, even though a good portion of my DNA is comprised of aircraft parts. The Stratocruiser isn't one of my favourite airliners. Like the bumble bee, it doesn't seem like it could actually fly. However, willy nilly I've learned a great deal about the Stratocruiser as a result of a Stratocruiser crash cover, which was sent to me as a gift by Tracy Barber, whom some of you may remember from the old rec.collecting.stamps.discuss group on Usenet:
I've published an extensive web page about the Prestwick crash, which involved a Stratocruiser. During my research, I was privileged to have detailed email conversations with people who lost friends and family members in the crash. The most interesting contact was with Malcolm Stewart, the son the Stratocruier's pilot, Capt. William L. Stewart. The web page includes a lot of information about the development and history of the Stratocruiser. See Christmas tragedy at Prestwick.
Now back to the stamp in question. I remembered that I once noticed one of my copies of the stamp in question, Scott design AP22, has a distinctly blue cast over the entire stamp, selvedge and all. Here it is, along with another copy of the stamp without the blue cast.
"Dry" &" Wet" printings
The stamp on the left is almost certainly an example of Scott C36, the one on the right C36a. The Scott catalogue explains the difference: In 1953 the Bureau of Engraving and Printing began experiments in printing on "dry" paper with low moisture content in contrast to the previous so-called "wet" printings on paper with higher moisture content. The "dry" process required thicker, stiffer paper, special inks and greater pressure to force the paper into the printing plates. The "dry" printings show whiter paper, a higher sheen on the surface, feel thicker and stiffer, and the designs stand out more clearly than on the "wet" printings.
What I assume to be my dry-printed stamp does feel thicker and stiffer than the wet-printed stamp, assuming I've correctly identified each stamp. When I did the "finger snap" test — flicking my index finger strongly against each stamp — the dry- printed stamp gave a distinctly stronger, more resistant sound than the wet-printed stamp, but I'd need a caliper to prove that the stamps have different thickness.
I wonder if the stamp that began this thread is an example of an early "dry" printing experiment.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
The bottom stamp in the picture has heavy "airmail" printing that I've never seen before. I guess it must be accidental sloppy printing but I'm not sure. So I'm asking for opinions Thanks for any. Chris
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
Wow. That's quite a printing freak there. Looks overinked, but is there any hint of a double impression? Is there even such a thing for a rotary press stamp, or just flat plate? I'm thinking the latter.
Login to Like
this post
05:19:46pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
It's more than just over inking
The 25c is completely different
The plane is positioned wrong and has different details
There are differences in the letters - note the N & E
Not inking but a forgery
Login to Like
this post
06:22:52pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
Check the forgery section of the Scott US Specialized Catalog. It is not in my 2015 edition, but Scott has added more stamp to this section since then. If it's not in the catalog, send your picture to Scott and see if they want to see what you have for examination and possible addition to the catalog.
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
I don't think it is a forgery or any kind of printing error but instead a stamp that has been altered, probably to waste some time in some one's very boring life. A relative comparison would be this 1869 3cent Locomotive. Someone has goofed around altering most of the aspects of the engine.
Micheal, I have never heard about a forgery section in the Scott U.S. specialty catalog.
Is it something new, I cannot find it in my 2012 catalog. It would certainly be a nice addition.
Login to Like
this post
09:25:40pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
Scott added the section in the 2013 edition.
The February 27, 2017 issue of Linns has an article on US forgeries/Counterfeits. It includes some information on the section in the catalog.
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
There is a "Postal Counterfeits" section in my 2016 Scott Specialized. A quick check does not show any counterfeit of this stamp. That is not to say that this is not a counterfeit.
To me it looks like a problem with the printing of the stamp. An overinking combined with a paper problem. The paper may have been a bit moist. But probably more of an overinking problem with a overfull/dirty plate cleaning roller. The top margin of the stamp shows a smearing of the ink.
If it were a genuine(?) counterfeit, it would be a better copy.
George
I'd like to see a higher resolution scan of the "Air" letters and perhaps the upper line of the "funny" stamp.
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
Using Pixelmator (similar to Photoshop, for Apple computers), I copied and pasted the image of the "good" stamp over the "forgery," then changed its opacity to 50%. It's hard to match them perfectly because the original image is a photograph rather than a scan, and one stamp is bowed more than the other, but it looks to me like the aircraft (a Boeing Stratocruiser, BTW) is in exactly the same place on each stamp, and all of the other elements toward the centre of each stamp seem identical as well, excepting the fuzziness of the stamp in question.:
It would be useful to see large hi-res scans of each stamp so more a precise comparison could be made. Is it a forgery? I dunno.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
My opinion is a EFO due to over inking. Not a counterfeit or forgery.
Don
Login to Like
this post
04:35:42pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
I agree with what Don said. It definitely looks like it has been over inked with a bit of smearing. This topic is mentioned in the Scott Catalog of Errors on U.S. postage stamps on page 215.
Jeremy
Login to Like
this post
04:46:04pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
Over inking and Under inking occurs when the solvent used to clean the plates wasn't allowed enough time to dry.
Login to Like
this post
05:02:05pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
The thing that bothers me with over-inking is that the "AIR MAIL" lettering is smudgy and looks as if it were overwritten by hand. If it were just over-inking, you wouldn't see the original lettering behind the overwrite, and the "font" of the larger letters wouldn't have serifs. The lettering would be consistent with the original, and would only be visible once, not twice. One clue to it having been handwritten over the original letters is if the ink bled through the paper to the back. I'm not convinced that it is over-inking, but think more that it was embellished by someone aftermarket.
Login to Like
this post
05:08:05pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
Anything is possible. This a definite candidate for expertise certificate.
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
Hi all! Maybe this bottom image will help. The bottom 2 stamps came from an attached block of 6. This one is even more messed up and the bottom printing is really messy. Thanks for interest and help. Chris
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
"...The bottom 2 stamps came from an attached block of 6.. This one is even more messed up and the bottom printing is really messy. Thanks for interest and help. Chris"
Ah, even more compelling evidence of over-inking.
Don
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
If I may, why would over inking only occur within the text? I don't really see any evidence of it anywhere else on the stamps.
WB
Login to Like
this post
09:11:04pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
Okay. Now there is more evidence for the over-inking. Too bad the stamps are not still attached. Would be a better freak to show the transition.
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
It appears it isn't just on the lettering;
the ship in the forefront, the bridge uprights, the top cables....
they all show the signs of the over-inking.
Interesting!
Thanks for posting!
Randy
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
It does look like the effect is more dramatic where there are darker colors from heavier amounts of ink.
And Bob, I really likes your overlay technique, even if this wasn't a perfect specimen.
-Doug
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
20 Feb 2017
01:27:18pm
re: strange US airmail stamp
" ... it looks to me like the aircraft (a Boeing Stratocruiser, BTW) is in exactly the same place on each stamp, ..."
It certainly is a Boeing Stratocruiser. In 1949 or perhaps 1950 the school trip for my class was to Idlewild Airport where we were given a tour of a Stratocruiser. One thing that sticks in my mind is that it was a double decker with a circular staircase between passenger decks and the seats were very plush. It was probably created by overlaying the structural plans for one B-29 bomber over another. Idlewild Airport in New York City is now known as JFK International Airport.
The bridge shown in the stamp is the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as seen from somewhere near the Coast Guard base on Yerba Buena Island, and is often mistaken for the Golden Gate Bridge at the entrance to the bay.
The key is that the Bay Bridge towers look like three "X"s atop one another while the Golden gate looks like three "H"s stacked up.
A low value question on Jeopardy about that stumped an otherwise sharp player some years ago.
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
and there you have it the final three from the block of 6.
Login to Like
this post
re: strange US airmail stamp
I'll try to avoid highjacking this thread to talk about the Stratocruiser, even though a good portion of my DNA is comprised of aircraft parts. The Stratocruiser isn't one of my favourite airliners. Like the bumble bee, it doesn't seem like it could actually fly. However, willy nilly I've learned a great deal about the Stratocruiser as a result of a Stratocruiser crash cover, which was sent to me as a gift by Tracy Barber, whom some of you may remember from the old rec.collecting.stamps.discuss group on Usenet:
I've published an extensive web page about the Prestwick crash, which involved a Stratocruiser. During my research, I was privileged to have detailed email conversations with people who lost friends and family members in the crash. The most interesting contact was with Malcolm Stewart, the son the Stratocruier's pilot, Capt. William L. Stewart. The web page includes a lot of information about the development and history of the Stratocruiser. See Christmas tragedy at Prestwick.
Now back to the stamp in question. I remembered that I once noticed one of my copies of the stamp in question, Scott design AP22, has a distinctly blue cast over the entire stamp, selvedge and all. Here it is, along with another copy of the stamp without the blue cast.
"Dry" &" Wet" printings
The stamp on the left is almost certainly an example of Scott C36, the one on the right C36a. The Scott catalogue explains the difference: In 1953 the Bureau of Engraving and Printing began experiments in printing on "dry" paper with low moisture content in contrast to the previous so-called "wet" printings on paper with higher moisture content. The "dry" process required thicker, stiffer paper, special inks and greater pressure to force the paper into the printing plates. The "dry" printings show whiter paper, a higher sheen on the surface, feel thicker and stiffer, and the designs stand out more clearly than on the "wet" printings.
What I assume to be my dry-printed stamp does feel thicker and stiffer than the wet-printed stamp, assuming I've correctly identified each stamp. When I did the "finger snap" test — flicking my index finger strongly against each stamp — the dry- printed stamp gave a distinctly stronger, more resistant sound than the wet-printed stamp, but I'd need a caliper to prove that the stamps have different thickness.
I wonder if the stamp that began this thread is an example of an early "dry" printing experiment.
Bob
Login to Like
this post