Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
This is one of several puzzling items I have found in the Union City hoard. It is wove paper and has a partial UPSS watermark 8. The paper is slightly heavier than wrapper paper. I have found only one other copy of the 1c blue with this paper/watermark combination among the hoard. That other copy has a lighter blue indicium and a machine cancel. A third copy on this heavier wove manila paper has an unclear watermark, and a fourth copy doesn't include any part of the watermark at all.
This paper/watermark combination is not listed in my 2012 copy of the UPSS catalog. Although a few types with wove paper are listed with various envelope sizes and different knife designs, none of those is watermark 8.
Were there so many variations in papers and watermarks that it just wasn't possible for UPSS to include everything?
Login to Like
this post
Chances are good that it is a U300, laid paper and watermark 7. Watermark 7 and 8 are often hard to differentiate.
Don
U294 - note that toned 294s can also be mistaken for 300s
Login to Like
this post
Don, I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Thank you.
Having looked at hundreds of these Die 83s, multiple times in many cases, I've become pretty good at distinguishing between the laid and wove papers. Usually, it is a very easy distinction to make, but I have several that remain questionable. In this case, my search for visible laid paper lines came up empty handed; viewing this cut square in front of a bright light—with or without a low-powered loupe—revealed only the random thick and thin areas and random paper fibers.
However, after your comments, I've been looking again at this and others where I couldn't distinguish the laid paper lines. I discovered something with this particular copy. I can find patches of faint laid lines if I hold the cut square at the correct angle to the light source (Solux desk lamp) and rotate it just right (within about a 10-20° arc.) Doing this, I can make out patches of the laid lines, running at the expected ~30° (?) angle from upper left to lower right. It happened twice. However, it is like focusing a manual telescope lens on a distant object—with the added complexity of the angle of the paper thrown in for good measure. It requires a surprising amount of precision. Rotate too far in either direction from the focus and the line detail is lost in the randomness of the paper fibers. Plus, I can’t easily repeat this. Since I’m holding the cut square in my hand and don’t have a way to precisely adjust the angle of the paper with respect to the light source and can’t precisely rotate the cut square and at the same time keep the proper angle with the light source, it’s very difficult to repeat my success. In fact, I haven’t been able to repeat it in subsequent attempts. Also, I’m not certain this works from both sides of the paper.
My setup doesn't allow me to hold an object directly in front of the light source. So I'm always holding the cut square at an angle to the light source. After starting this response, I have spent another five minutes trying to more precisely explain how I managed to see the patches of lines, but have been unable to repeat that earlier success. I’m guessing the angle of the paper with respect to the light is important and I need to determine if a specific angle of the light source with respect to the laid lines is pertinent. I also need to see if this works with a particular side of the paper facing the light source. Unfortunately, this is hard on the eyes. I probably won’t be doing much of this again!
There is probably an interesting science project here for someone (with appropriate eye protection). Set up an upward facing light source with a (separate?) mechanism that can hold the cut square directly above the light source or off to the side (for angling the paper, if needed). Make sure the mechanism allows both rotating the cut square with respect to the light source and changing the angle of the paper. I suppose this may be the only way the laid lines in this cut square specimen could be recorded. I am guessing we’re dealing with the uneven paper texture and associated shadows created by the lines when the light strikes them just right. Why else would those lines come in and out of view when rotating and/or changing the angle of the paper by small increments?
With respect to the watermark, most of the cut squares hoard was collected in 1891-93. Although most show no sign of the watermarks, those that do are usually watermark 8 and I've become fairly good at identifying that watermark. In this case, the small portion of the displayed watermark is clear and positioned away from the indicium.
Unfortunately, I don't have a quick and convenient way to create a back-light image as you have done. What I can clearly see in this case (in the upper left-hand corner of the cut square) is the nearly full left leg of the "U" and a tiny portion of the right leg of the “U” where it overlaps the top of the "S." The upper portion of the "S" between those two legs shows clearly as well. It happens to be a very distinct partial watermark 8 in this instance. I'm not always that lucky.
I didn't consider U294 for two reasons. I've got so many 1c blues on different paper colors, it is easy to make comparisons and identify paper toning. These cut squares generally display no toning; they were very tightly bound with string and thread in bundles of 100 each. This apparently was done shortly after they were collected. Except for the top and bottom cut square in each bundle, they're very clean. The exceptions arise because the cut square sizes vary considerably (and a rodent or two nibbled on a few). Some of the largest specimens within the bundles show paper toning along an exposed edge or two. These exceptions are easy to spot.
I didn't scan the back of this cut square, but the paper color is as clean and even as you could want. And it matches the paper color of the other Die 83 1c blue manila paper examples. No evidence of toning. The face has very faint soiling from the mailing process, but the back is very clean, as are most of my cut squares.
I'm very lucky to have inherited these cut squares (and the thousands of stamps that accompanied them) in this condition. Plus, having so many, I can make comparisons. Aside from the paper color comparisons, I can sometimes match multiple copies of a particular inking or die characteristic or fancy/geometric cancel. I’ve gotten a lot of enjoyment from this gift Dad left for me to deal with. I’ve learned a lot and obviously have more to learn!
Tom
Login to Like
this post
This large cut square is Scott U300, blue indicium on manila paper. The United Postal Stationery Society (UPSS) catalog lists this as Die 83. It is one of the Union City, Indiana, hoard I have mentioned in other posts. That hoard consisted of 11-12,000 cut squares that were collected in Union City, Indiana, mostly from the 1891 to 1893 period.
This is one of several puzzling items I have found in the Union City hoard. It is wove paper and has a partial UPSS watermark 8. The paper is slightly heavier than wrapper paper. I have found only one other copy of the 1c blue with this paper/watermark combination among the hoard. That other copy has a lighter blue indicium and a machine cancel. A third copy on this heavier wove manila paper has an unclear watermark, and a fourth copy doesn't include any part of the watermark at all.
This paper/watermark combination is not listed in my 2012 copy of the UPSS catalog. Although a few types with wove paper are listed with various envelope sizes and different knife designs, none of those is watermark 8.
Were there so many variations in papers and watermarks that it just wasn't possible for UPSS to include everything?
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott U300 1c blue Franklin on heavier manila wove paper with UPSS wmk 8 not listed in the UPSS catalog
Chances are good that it is a U300, laid paper and watermark 7. Watermark 7 and 8 are often hard to differentiate.
Don
U294 - note that toned 294s can also be mistaken for 300s
Login to Like
this post
re: Scott U300 1c blue Franklin on heavier manila wove paper with UPSS wmk 8 not listed in the UPSS catalog
Don, I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Thank you.
Having looked at hundreds of these Die 83s, multiple times in many cases, I've become pretty good at distinguishing between the laid and wove papers. Usually, it is a very easy distinction to make, but I have several that remain questionable. In this case, my search for visible laid paper lines came up empty handed; viewing this cut square in front of a bright light—with or without a low-powered loupe—revealed only the random thick and thin areas and random paper fibers.
However, after your comments, I've been looking again at this and others where I couldn't distinguish the laid paper lines. I discovered something with this particular copy. I can find patches of faint laid lines if I hold the cut square at the correct angle to the light source (Solux desk lamp) and rotate it just right (within about a 10-20° arc.) Doing this, I can make out patches of the laid lines, running at the expected ~30° (?) angle from upper left to lower right. It happened twice. However, it is like focusing a manual telescope lens on a distant object—with the added complexity of the angle of the paper thrown in for good measure. It requires a surprising amount of precision. Rotate too far in either direction from the focus and the line detail is lost in the randomness of the paper fibers. Plus, I can’t easily repeat this. Since I’m holding the cut square in my hand and don’t have a way to precisely adjust the angle of the paper with respect to the light source and can’t precisely rotate the cut square and at the same time keep the proper angle with the light source, it’s very difficult to repeat my success. In fact, I haven’t been able to repeat it in subsequent attempts. Also, I’m not certain this works from both sides of the paper.
My setup doesn't allow me to hold an object directly in front of the light source. So I'm always holding the cut square at an angle to the light source. After starting this response, I have spent another five minutes trying to more precisely explain how I managed to see the patches of lines, but have been unable to repeat that earlier success. I’m guessing the angle of the paper with respect to the light is important and I need to determine if a specific angle of the light source with respect to the laid lines is pertinent. I also need to see if this works with a particular side of the paper facing the light source. Unfortunately, this is hard on the eyes. I probably won’t be doing much of this again!
There is probably an interesting science project here for someone (with appropriate eye protection). Set up an upward facing light source with a (separate?) mechanism that can hold the cut square directly above the light source or off to the side (for angling the paper, if needed). Make sure the mechanism allows both rotating the cut square with respect to the light source and changing the angle of the paper. I suppose this may be the only way the laid lines in this cut square specimen could be recorded. I am guessing we’re dealing with the uneven paper texture and associated shadows created by the lines when the light strikes them just right. Why else would those lines come in and out of view when rotating and/or changing the angle of the paper by small increments?
With respect to the watermark, most of the cut squares hoard was collected in 1891-93. Although most show no sign of the watermarks, those that do are usually watermark 8 and I've become fairly good at identifying that watermark. In this case, the small portion of the displayed watermark is clear and positioned away from the indicium.
Unfortunately, I don't have a quick and convenient way to create a back-light image as you have done. What I can clearly see in this case (in the upper left-hand corner of the cut square) is the nearly full left leg of the "U" and a tiny portion of the right leg of the “U” where it overlaps the top of the "S." The upper portion of the "S" between those two legs shows clearly as well. It happens to be a very distinct partial watermark 8 in this instance. I'm not always that lucky.
I didn't consider U294 for two reasons. I've got so many 1c blues on different paper colors, it is easy to make comparisons and identify paper toning. These cut squares generally display no toning; they were very tightly bound with string and thread in bundles of 100 each. This apparently was done shortly after they were collected. Except for the top and bottom cut square in each bundle, they're very clean. The exceptions arise because the cut square sizes vary considerably (and a rodent or two nibbled on a few). Some of the largest specimens within the bundles show paper toning along an exposed edge or two. These exceptions are easy to spot.
I didn't scan the back of this cut square, but the paper color is as clean and even as you could want. And it matches the paper color of the other Die 83 1c blue manila paper examples. No evidence of toning. The face has very faint soiling from the mailing process, but the back is very clean, as are most of my cut squares.
I'm very lucky to have inherited these cut squares (and the thousands of stamps that accompanied them) in this condition. Plus, having so many, I can make comparisons. Aside from the paper color comparisons, I can sometimes match multiple copies of a particular inking or die characteristic or fancy/geometric cancel. I’ve gotten a lot of enjoyment from this gift Dad left for me to deal with. I’ve learned a lot and obviously have more to learn!
Tom
Login to Like
this post