Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
My 2005 Durland only lists plate numbers for 1414 and 1414a so they don't recognize the Type II variety. Is there any source that identifies which plates are Type I and which are Type II?
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Lars,
I am not an expert on printing techniques, but one possible explanation is that the 1414d and 1414e are printed on different papers using the same set of color negatives. Photogravure printing requires a separate negative for each color. The precancel was black and a different negative was required for the intense black as described by Scott's editorial board. The general difference in the two varieties is the sharpness of the impression and snowflaking which may come from the paper and not the negative (plate).
My 2012 Durland does not report different numbers for 1414d or 1414e. The other less likely explanation is that no one has reported different numbers for those varieties. Given the length of time between printing of the stamps and publication of the aforementioned editions of the Durland catalog it is highly unlikely that different negatives (read plate numbers) were used for the 'd' and 'e' varieties.
References;
Scott 2011 catalog page 131.
Durland 2012 Standard Plate Number Catalog page 154
Williams, Fundamentals of Philately (various)
Hope this helps.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks, Les! I was focusing on the plates instead of the paper. Let me try looking at this again from a different perspective. I found 2 articles yesterday about this issue listed in the APRL library reference. I plan to contact them tomorrow to see about getting copies:
1. Four Varieties of 19-year-old Yule stamp / Wayne Youngblood / Linn's Dec 18, 1989
2. Success at last! The "rent-a-press" stamps of 1970 / Ken Lawrence / Scott Stamp Monthly Jan, 2003
Thanks again for the tip, Les!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Les, I received the articles from APRL via email the same day! You were right about the paper. The Type I stamps were printed on a "gummed gravure paper with a smooth finish" that resulted in a design that was "fairly blurred" according to the article by Youngblood. From that same article I learned that the Type II stamps came from a "second printing" due to demand for additional stamps that used "a slightly creamy ungummed gravure paper stock." The stamps were gummed by BEP and have the typical gum breaker ridges.
I bought 30 plate blocks of assorted 1414 on eBay to see if I can make any connection between plate numbers and Type. Looking at Durland, it seems plate number 32332 might be the most promising, but I may be unable to make any kind determination. Oh well, it will be fun, and it's $7.20 face value for only $8.49 including postage, so it's a cheap exercise!
Login to Like
this post
If you can make a conclusion, you might have an article for the USSS.
Login to Like
this post
I can make a conclusion, but nobody would print it. From my analysis, the only reliable way to differentiate 1414 from 1414d is the gum. I have to admit that 1414a and 1414e CAN be differentiated by the precan markings, and you can occasionally spot a 1414d with pronounced gum ridges on cover, but for the most part, differentiating 1414 from 1414d on cover or without gum would be no easier than differentiating a 1625 printed on a Huck Press from a 1625 printed on a "B" Press on cover or without gum (and without a joint line). There just isn't a reliable way, in my opinion, to do it without the gum.
The inaccurate registration of the colors on 1414 caused a lot of variability, and blurring occurred more within Types than between them.
But nobody wants to hear that we need FEWER major catalog numbers!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Based on the catalog descriptions of the varieties and my examination of a mint 1414d this morning, I would have to agree. A used 1414 without gum would be hard to differeniate, although the catalog does imply that a "d" has a sharper impression. The problem is that the gravure printing does not lend itself to examination at high magnification. Tried it at 30x with my microscope and all I could see was a lot of colored dots. Wonder how the expertizers would handle the problem?
Login to Like
this post
Les,
I doubt many of those would be seen by expertizers, but if they were the expertizers would do what they always do: Provide a definitive opinion that may or may not be correct. I'm jaded because I tried a little experiment, and the results were quite remarkable. I didn't try this with dozens of stamps and find a discrepancy. I tried this with EXACTLY one stamp, albeit the most likely candidate for a marginal call:
Login to Like
this post
Not that I am an expert, but I would agree with PSE on that one. I really don't think that you can say it is a fake coil unless you can see evidence of the perforation along the cut. What I was really thinking about is this: Is there some technique to identify the paper type on a 1414d short of seeing the ridges on the gum.
I also know that there are stamps which can never be certified beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, it makes little sense to counterfeit a modern stamp like 1414 the printing costs alone would exceed the value gained. What I was seeking was an ability to identify the used stamp as 1414d.
Login to Like
this post
I understand what you are saying, Les. I was just responding to your comment about what the expertizers would do. But to your point of identifying a used 1414, I just don't see it. There are apparently SOME 1414d's with such pronounced gum ridges that they can be seen on the front of the stamp on cover. But for the most part this reminds me of trying to differentiate a 3rd Bureau single with a single line WMK from an unwatermarked variety. It's easy if the watermark is obvious, but how can you know for sure if it's unwatermarked or single line wmk that barely touches the edge. Drives me nuts!
From all the examples I bought, I see more variability in paper color within types than between them.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Boy this post would be a heck of a lot more interesting with images. I guess I'm off to the steam room.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"Boy this post would be a heck of a lot more interesting with images. I guess I'm off to the steam room."
How, exactly, would we post images of something we can't see? The one way to differentiate those stamps is by the gum, and I have never been able to photograph gum in a way that is useful.
Login to Like
this post
02:09:53pm
This is an excellent example of why an expertizer should never be allowed to deface the back of the stamp as is done in certain countries.
Once one expert has ruled something is not genuine the chances a different one will take a second look are nil.
I have a beautiful set of Danzig overprints that were sent to a German auction house who asked an "expert." His opinion was that they were deemed "falsch" with not any explanation as to why. I sent a letter asking for an explanation and received a note that it was "because I have no such example in my collection."
I am afraid that I sent a further note explaining precisely where he should stuff his $20.00 invoice was less than diplomatic.
Apparently the fact that he had a hole in his extensive collection was potentially too humiliating to render a factual opinion.
Had he given a reason such as size of the overprint, the perforations, the kind of glue or a flaw known to be from a forger, I'd have been sad, but would have accepted his opinion.
Login to Like
this post
Well, Charlie. I guess that makes two of us with a jaded opinion!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Charlie,
Did you consider using the American Philatelic Experizing Service? You don't have to be a member to use the service. You also might consider the Philatelic Foundation, they even refer to the stamps submitted for examination as "patients".
However I agree with you that no one should deface the back of a stamp with a pencil mark, identification stamp, initials, fat greasy fingers or anything else. I remember walking into a dealer's and watching one of the family members that he now employs sorting foreign stamps without a single set of stamp tongs in evidence.
Les
Login to Like
this post
For those of you who are complaining about the lack of visuals, when I get a "round 2 it" I will do some scans and show you what we are talking about. After all 1414 is a Christmas stamp.
Login to Like
this post
Les,
I'll save you the trouble:
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
It is interesting I went ahead and scanned my 1414d which shows very prominent breaker ridges. The vertical ridge is even visible on the front. Even at 600 dpi, I cannot see the ridges on the scan. Scott 1414 
Scott 1414d
However you can see that the gum on the 1414d is bit more pebbled.
I put both a 1414 and 1414d into my Signoscope T4 and I could see parallel ridges on both stamps, but the 1414 did not show ridges on a visual exam. I may try a digital camera shot to try to bring out the 1414d ridges.
Login to Like
this post
12:25:40pm
Would it show up if you shot the photo from a slight angle ?
Login to Like
this post
If you are able to capture those ridges, I think we would ALL like to know how you did it (angle, lighting, etc.) I have just recently been successful in capturing a photo of a few watermarks, but it's tough. Not nearly as tough, in my opinion, as capturing a proper image of gum properties!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Charlie and Lars,
I can see the ridges at an angle. I am going to try to duplicate the angular effect with both the camera and usb microscope. Will provide the resulting views.
Login to Like
this post
These are two images of the 1414d oriented horizontally taken with a USB microscope. The stamp was on an inclined plane at about 30 degrees. The first image is raw.
I ran the image through photoshop and did a smart sharpen.
You can see the vertical ridges going across at an angle. You also might be able to see the horizontal ridges.
Login to Like
this post
I'll try it with my digital camera and see how that looks...
Login to Like
this post
OK, here is what the gum looks like on 1414d:
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. It's EASY to differentiate 1414 from 1414d if they have gum, just as it's EASY to differentiate 1625 printed on the 9 Color Huck press from the same stamp printed on the B Press if they have gum, but 1414 has a minor and 1625 does not. 1414 and 1414d were printed on the same presses with the same plate numbers, but one was printed on pre-gummed paper and the other gummed later. 1625 was printed on TWO DIFFERENT PRESSES and HAS DIFFERENT GUMS, but there is no minor listed. The reason, as far as I can ascertain, is that minors (or Types) are not assigned to stamps that cannot be differentiated if they have been used. I admit, I can't tell the difference between the two versions of 1625 from the front, but neither can I tell the difference between 1414 and 1414d from the front. Having examined several plate blocks I have reached the conclusion that the poor registration of that issue caused so much blurring that trying to identify that stamp from the front would be a risky proposition. Plate numbers won't help, either. I prefer a smooth blonde gum to tell me it's 1414 and a checkerboard light tan gum to tell me it's 1414d.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Well, you did a much better job than I with the camera. I agree with you about the point you were making. It is difficult if not impossible to determine the variety if the 1414 is used. From a value standpoint, I don't suppose it makes a difference. From the aesthetic standpoint, you can't really be sure which used 1414 is a d and which is not.
However you have the same problem with the Farley issues. You must collect position pieces to be sure you have correctly identified the variety.
Login to Like
this post
Les,
I'm still not making my point, I'm afraid. 1414 has two types that can be easily differentiated by gum. 1625 was printed on different presses and those can be easily identified by gum. However, 1414 has two types and 1625 does not. I read somewhere that Scott won't issue even a minor catalog number if gum is the only difference - a nod to used and cover collectors, I suppose. Therefore 1414 could NOT have two types unless there was a way to differentiate them other than gum. It seems to me that difference doesn't really exist, so 1414 should be treated the same as 1625. Just my humble opinion.
Cheers!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
If you magnify(just slightly), both types have snow flaking. Seems the type I has alot more snow flaking above the clouds. Type II has almost NO snow flakes above the clouds. If I see more than 5 flakes above the clouds I consider that a type I. Although it seems type II has none, usually if I see one or two flakes its on a stamp that is in bad shape from being mailed and such and still is a type II. It doesn't take much to disturb the print on this issue by a crease or rough handling.
Login to Like
this post
According to 2011 Scott Specialized, 1414 (and the precanceled 1414a) are Type I. 1414d (and the precanceled 1414e) are Type II.
My 2005 Durland only lists plate numbers for 1414 and 1414a so they don't recognize the Type II variety. Is there any source that identifies which plates are Type I and which are Type II?
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Lars,
I am not an expert on printing techniques, but one possible explanation is that the 1414d and 1414e are printed on different papers using the same set of color negatives. Photogravure printing requires a separate negative for each color. The precancel was black and a different negative was required for the intense black as described by Scott's editorial board. The general difference in the two varieties is the sharpness of the impression and snowflaking which may come from the paper and not the negative (plate).
My 2012 Durland does not report different numbers for 1414d or 1414e. The other less likely explanation is that no one has reported different numbers for those varieties. Given the length of time between printing of the stamps and publication of the aforementioned editions of the Durland catalog it is highly unlikely that different negatives (read plate numbers) were used for the 'd' and 'e' varieties.
References;
Scott 2011 catalog page 131.
Durland 2012 Standard Plate Number Catalog page 154
Williams, Fundamentals of Philately (various)
Hope this helps.
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Thanks, Les! I was focusing on the plates instead of the paper. Let me try looking at this again from a different perspective. I found 2 articles yesterday about this issue listed in the APRL library reference. I plan to contact them tomorrow to see about getting copies:
1. Four Varieties of 19-year-old Yule stamp / Wayne Youngblood / Linn's Dec 18, 1989
2. Success at last! The "rent-a-press" stamps of 1970 / Ken Lawrence / Scott Stamp Monthly Jan, 2003
Thanks again for the tip, Les!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Les, I received the articles from APRL via email the same day! You were right about the paper. The Type I stamps were printed on a "gummed gravure paper with a smooth finish" that resulted in a design that was "fairly blurred" according to the article by Youngblood. From that same article I learned that the Type II stamps came from a "second printing" due to demand for additional stamps that used "a slightly creamy ungummed gravure paper stock." The stamps were gummed by BEP and have the typical gum breaker ridges.
I bought 30 plate blocks of assorted 1414 on eBay to see if I can make any connection between plate numbers and Type. Looking at Durland, it seems plate number 32332 might be the most promising, but I may be unable to make any kind determination. Oh well, it will be fun, and it's $7.20 face value for only $8.49 including postage, so it's a cheap exercise!
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
If you can make a conclusion, you might have an article for the USSS.
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
I can make a conclusion, but nobody would print it. From my analysis, the only reliable way to differentiate 1414 from 1414d is the gum. I have to admit that 1414a and 1414e CAN be differentiated by the precan markings, and you can occasionally spot a 1414d with pronounced gum ridges on cover, but for the most part, differentiating 1414 from 1414d on cover or without gum would be no easier than differentiating a 1625 printed on a Huck Press from a 1625 printed on a "B" Press on cover or without gum (and without a joint line). There just isn't a reliable way, in my opinion, to do it without the gum.
The inaccurate registration of the colors on 1414 caused a lot of variability, and blurring occurred more within Types than between them.
But nobody wants to hear that we need FEWER major catalog numbers!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Based on the catalog descriptions of the varieties and my examination of a mint 1414d this morning, I would have to agree. A used 1414 without gum would be hard to differeniate, although the catalog does imply that a "d" has a sharper impression. The problem is that the gravure printing does not lend itself to examination at high magnification. Tried it at 30x with my microscope and all I could see was a lot of colored dots. Wonder how the expertizers would handle the problem?
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Les,
I doubt many of those would be seen by expertizers, but if they were the expertizers would do what they always do: Provide a definitive opinion that may or may not be correct. I'm jaded because I tried a little experiment, and the results were quite remarkable. I didn't try this with dozens of stamps and find a discrepancy. I tried this with EXACTLY one stamp, albeit the most likely candidate for a marginal call:
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Not that I am an expert, but I would agree with PSE on that one. I really don't think that you can say it is a fake coil unless you can see evidence of the perforation along the cut. What I was really thinking about is this: Is there some technique to identify the paper type on a 1414d short of seeing the ridges on the gum.
I also know that there are stamps which can never be certified beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, it makes little sense to counterfeit a modern stamp like 1414 the printing costs alone would exceed the value gained. What I was seeking was an ability to identify the used stamp as 1414d.
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
I understand what you are saying, Les. I was just responding to your comment about what the expertizers would do. But to your point of identifying a used 1414, I just don't see it. There are apparently SOME 1414d's with such pronounced gum ridges that they can be seen on the front of the stamp on cover. But for the most part this reminds me of trying to differentiate a 3rd Bureau single with a single line WMK from an unwatermarked variety. It's easy if the watermark is obvious, but how can you know for sure if it's unwatermarked or single line wmk that barely touches the edge. Drives me nuts!
From all the examples I bought, I see more variability in paper color within types than between them.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Boy this post would be a heck of a lot more interesting with images. I guess I'm off to the steam room.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
"Boy this post would be a heck of a lot more interesting with images. I guess I'm off to the steam room."
How, exactly, would we post images of something we can't see? The one way to differentiate those stamps is by the gum, and I have never been able to photograph gum in a way that is useful.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
27 Jan 2014
02:09:53pm
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
This is an excellent example of why an expertizer should never be allowed to deface the back of the stamp as is done in certain countries.
Once one expert has ruled something is not genuine the chances a different one will take a second look are nil.
I have a beautiful set of Danzig overprints that were sent to a German auction house who asked an "expert." His opinion was that they were deemed "falsch" with not any explanation as to why. I sent a letter asking for an explanation and received a note that it was "because I have no such example in my collection."
I am afraid that I sent a further note explaining precisely where he should stuff his $20.00 invoice was less than diplomatic.
Apparently the fact that he had a hole in his extensive collection was potentially too humiliating to render a factual opinion.
Had he given a reason such as size of the overprint, the perforations, the kind of glue or a flaw known to be from a forger, I'd have been sad, but would have accepted his opinion.
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Well, Charlie. I guess that makes two of us with a jaded opinion!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Charlie,
Did you consider using the American Philatelic Experizing Service? You don't have to be a member to use the service. You also might consider the Philatelic Foundation, they even refer to the stamps submitted for examination as "patients".
However I agree with you that no one should deface the back of a stamp with a pencil mark, identification stamp, initials, fat greasy fingers or anything else. I remember walking into a dealer's and watching one of the family members that he now employs sorting foreign stamps without a single set of stamp tongs in evidence.
Les
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
For those of you who are complaining about the lack of visuals, when I get a "round 2 it" I will do some scans and show you what we are talking about. After all 1414 is a Christmas stamp.
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Les,
I'll save you the trouble:
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
It is interesting I went ahead and scanned my 1414d which shows very prominent breaker ridges. The vertical ridge is even visible on the front. Even at 600 dpi, I cannot see the ridges on the scan. Scott 1414
Scott 1414d
However you can see that the gum on the 1414d is bit more pebbled.
I put both a 1414 and 1414d into my Signoscope T4 and I could see parallel ridges on both stamps, but the 1414 did not show ridges on a visual exam. I may try a digital camera shot to try to bring out the 1414d ridges.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
28 Jan 2014
12:25:40pm
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Would it show up if you shot the photo from a slight angle ?
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
If you are able to capture those ridges, I think we would ALL like to know how you did it (angle, lighting, etc.) I have just recently been successful in capturing a photo of a few watermarks, but it's tough. Not nearly as tough, in my opinion, as capturing a proper image of gum properties!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Charlie and Lars,
I can see the ridges at an angle. I am going to try to duplicate the angular effect with both the camera and usb microscope. Will provide the resulting views.
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
These are two images of the 1414d oriented horizontally taken with a USB microscope. The stamp was on an inclined plane at about 30 degrees. The first image is raw.
I ran the image through photoshop and did a smart sharpen.
You can see the vertical ridges going across at an angle. You also might be able to see the horizontal ridges.
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
I'll try it with my digital camera and see how that looks...
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
OK, here is what the gum looks like on 1414d:
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. It's EASY to differentiate 1414 from 1414d if they have gum, just as it's EASY to differentiate 1625 printed on the 9 Color Huck press from the same stamp printed on the B Press if they have gum, but 1414 has a minor and 1625 does not. 1414 and 1414d were printed on the same presses with the same plate numbers, but one was printed on pre-gummed paper and the other gummed later. 1625 was printed on TWO DIFFERENT PRESSES and HAS DIFFERENT GUMS, but there is no minor listed. The reason, as far as I can ascertain, is that minors (or Types) are not assigned to stamps that cannot be differentiated if they have been used. I admit, I can't tell the difference between the two versions of 1625 from the front, but neither can I tell the difference between 1414 and 1414d from the front. Having examined several plate blocks I have reached the conclusion that the poor registration of that issue caused so much blurring that trying to identify that stamp from the front would be a risky proposition. Plate numbers won't help, either. I prefer a smooth blonde gum to tell me it's 1414 and a checkerboard light tan gum to tell me it's 1414d.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Well, you did a much better job than I with the camera. I agree with you about the point you were making. It is difficult if not impossible to determine the variety if the 1414 is used. From a value standpoint, I don't suppose it makes a difference. From the aesthetic standpoint, you can't really be sure which used 1414 is a d and which is not.
However you have the same problem with the Farley issues. You must collect position pieces to be sure you have correctly identified the variety.
Login to Like
this post
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
Les,
I'm still not making my point, I'm afraid. 1414 has two types that can be easily differentiated by gum. 1625 was printed on different presses and those can be easily identified by gum. However, 1414 has two types and 1625 does not. I read somewhere that Scott won't issue even a minor catalog number if gum is the only difference - a nod to used and cover collectors, I suppose. Therefore 1414 could NOT have two types unless there was a way to differentiate them other than gum. It seems to me that difference doesn't really exist, so 1414 should be treated the same as 1625. Just my humble opinion.
Cheers!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
11:32:34pm
re: Differentiating US 1414 varieties
If you magnify(just slightly), both types have snow flaking. Seems the type I has alot more snow flaking above the clouds. Type II has almost NO snow flakes above the clouds. If I see more than 5 flakes above the clouds I consider that a type I. Although it seems type II has none, usually if I see one or two flakes its on a stamp that is in bad shape from being mailed and such and still is a type II. It doesn't take much to disturb the print on this issue by a crease or rough handling.
Login to Like
this post