|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glossary of Terms |
|
Letters to the Editor |
||||||||
May 2008 |
Plate Position Diagrams Revisited Dear Sir, The American Plate Number Single Society (APNSS) supports collectors of plate number singles as well as other marginal markings. Some members collect pane position markings, both as single stamps and in larger blocks or multiples. As with plate numbers, ZIPs and other marginal markings, I am sure some collectors look for one of each issue, while others try to find an example of each possible pane position. We don't include Pane Position Singles (PPS) in the Hebert's Standard Catalog of Plate Number Singles, since the purpose of the work is to list and price PNS for the individual plate numbers that were used on each issue. However, we do list and price ZIP, ME and Copyright singles. The Copyright singles are especially important because on more recent issues, USPS sometimes does not include plate numbers at all and the Copyright notice is the only marginal marking of any sort. Sometimes even that appears only on the back, such as with this year's Chinese New Year stamp, Scott #4221. I would be happy to consider adding pane position singles to a future edition of the Hebert's Catalog, if there is sufficient interest and demand for it, and several reliable contributors for pricing data. Sincerely, | |||||||
May 2008 |
Shanghai Overprints Dear Sir, I enjoyed the article on the Shanghai overprints in the February, 2008 issue of The United States Specialist. The 10¢ on 5¢ Offices in China (Scott K5) illustrated below shows another variation. Look at the "Shanghai" on the LL stamp in relation to the stamps above it - the "S" is almost flush with the edge of the design while the other two stamps the "S" is well to the left of the edge. Yet all three stamps on the right seem to have the "S" lined up vertically. So just the single overprint is mis-aligned. Why is the single overprint is out of line? This doesn't seem to match any of the cases you showed in your article. Sincerely,
Dear Sir, The bottom two overprints are lower on the stamps than the top four, so this is the UL-L position. You are correct that the lower left overprint is closer than normal to the lower right one; this is simply the way the mini-overprinting plate was made up. Sincerely, | |||||||
March 2008 |
Dear Sir, I enjoyed the series of articles very much regarding marginal markings in The U.S. Specialist. I was a little surprised at how little attention was given to collecting habits, particularly in the last article with pane position diagrams, probably only because I'm looking for more guidance or a consensus. I've perceived that many plate block collectors now opt to collect a plate block that encompasses the pane position diagram, but this wasn't mentioned in the brief paragraph regarding collecting habits [January, 2008, p. 30]. Any comments or suggestions for further information? Sincerely, Dear Sir, I'm glad Jim is enjoying the series. I've been considering his comment on the pane position diagrams. I really can't add anything to what was in the article. That's probably because I don't know anyone who collects pane position diagrams!! Additionally, there is very little in the literature about pane position diagrams and what is there does not address the way they are collected. If anyone can provide information on how pane position diagrams are collected, please contact Jim Isaacson and Doug D'Avino. Sincerely, | |||||||
March 2008 |
Re: Cottrell Press Dear Sir, In the December, 2007 issue of The United States Specialist, the authors of "A Categorization of Marginal Markings: Plate Number Types, Part IV" listed the Cottrell press, with a plate size of 384 subjects, in Table 1 as a source of Plate Number Coils (PNC). Alan Thomson has made us aware that this entry is in error. Alan reports that "Press logs do not support the contention that any PNC was ever printed on the Cottrell press with a plate width of 16 images. All Cottrell coil printings with a number on the stamp were printed from plates that were 18 x 24 (approximately 20 issues)." Our thanks to Alan for the corrected information. We regret the error. Sincerely, | |||||||
January 2008 |
Dear Sir, In the November, 2007 issue of The United States Specialist, the authors of "A Categorization of Marginal Markings: Plate Number Types, Part III" listed hand altered, hand drawn or improperly applied offset plate numbers; and requested to be notified if there were any additions to the table. Our thanks to Jacques Schiff, Jr. for reporting the item below, a left plate block of the 2¢ carmine offset Washington (Scott #526), plate number 10863. The "8" is hand drawn, and the bottom of the "0" appears touched up as well. While the "1" and "0" look the same as on the previously published example of 10862 (also shown), the "8" is smaller and raised. The "6" and "3" are higher, too, although full size. Sincerely,
| |||||||
December 2007 |
Dear Sir, Robert Schlesinger showed some mouth watering Prexie usages in his article "Postal Forms with Prexies Affixed" in the November U.S. Specialist. But he didn't catch the postal clerk's error on the form shown in Figure 5, the certificate of mailing. The fee was 1 cent per mailpiece. There are ten pieces listed but the clerk miscounting and charged only 9 cents. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Tes, I DID forget to mention this in the article. The purpose of showing this item was to show that there was a form that was used when multiple certificates of mailing were required; the rate aspect was secondary, which was why that was overlooked. Apparently, the clerk made a mistake. Sincerely, | |||||||
October 2007 |
Re: FTPO Coils Dear Sir, I have some additional information and clarifications about the new test stamps reported in the August issue by John Larson. There is one more roll of 100 of the new reported BEP For Testing Purposes test coil. I have been aware of this roll since June, 2002, but have not been allowed to mention it until now. The roll was found in a post office packaged in a 33¢ City Flag coil bubble pack. There is precedent for this, as a roll of the TD124 blue rectangle test coil was found in a post office in a 29¢ White House coil bubble pack. The City Flag coils were released in February, 1999 and were rendered obsolete by the rate change to 34¢ in January, 2001, which should help date these test coils. The last my source of information knew, the finder had not parted with any of the roll. Mention is made of previous BEP FTPO stamps that "were printed in black on "blue" paper" - in actuality, the paper was tagged white paper that had three layers of blue tinted ink applied to block the tagging before the black design was printed. While all four of the digits in the 1111 plate number were printed in black, three of them represented the three blue plates (the only way they could have otherwise printed the three digits for the blue plates would have been in negative with all three blue plates having dropout 111's - if each blue plate were to have only a single dropout 1 in a different location next to each other, the other blue plates would have overprinted those 1's). These new BEP FTPO stamps were printed on untagged paper and no tagging blocking ink was needed, but for whatever reason they still copied the previous design using four black 1's. The die cut gauge of 11.6 for the newly discovered version of the SSP Test Void test coil matches that used for the 20¢ Blue Jay coil of 100 that was released in August, 1996. The Blue Jay was produced by Stamp Venturers, which was the predecessor of Sennett Security Products (SSP). SSP itself was not formed until May of 1998, so these SSP Test Void coils could not have been produced until at least then. Whether they were made with dies that were left over from the Blue Jay production or made with new dies that were patterned after the Blue Jay dies is not known. SSP didn't produce any production coils of 100 until the 37¢ Flag of 2003, which had the 10.2 die cut gauge that was used on the earlier reported version of the SSP Test Void coil. Thus it seems likely that these gauge 11.6 SSP test coils which were just reported were produced before the gauge 10.2 SSP test coils that were first reported 2 years ago. The article refers to a "misplaced 'cobra perforation' normally found at the top or bottom edge." The full die cutting pattern across all the rows of the web consists of a series of sine waves (the peaks and valleys) interrupted at a regular interval by what we call a separator, with the interval being one stamp height (each row produces a roll). In the case of Sennett, they use a longer slanting segment as the separator. When the die cutting and roll slitting are both properly aligned, the separator is split between two rolls, with the top half at the bottom of one roll and the bottom half at the top of the roll below it. On regular production Sennett coils of 100, it is quite common to find the entire separator at or near the top or bottom edge, and to the person who named it, the resulting shape looks like a cobra. The fact that the light blue South Carolina Flag test coils were found in 21¢ Bison bubble packs is consistent with several other features mentioned for these test stamps. The Bison, which was Avery's first coil of 100, was the only regular production coil from Avery that had the same five-stamp plate number interval. It was also the only issue that intervals (excluding one freak 23¢ George Washington roll). The 35 stamp interval is the actual diameter of the printing cylinder used and the five- stamp plate number interval is an artificial interval. These test coils carry a 2000 year date and the Bison coils were released in February, 2001 and their production easily could have started in 2000. It is mentioned that there was an original find of the light blue and dark blue South Carolina Flag test stamps that consisted of a single stamp each. They were discovered on ebay and the seller indicated that "right now this is all I have to offer," which certainly suggests the possibility that they have other copies. Sincerely, | |||||||
October 2007 |
Re: The Ongoing Myth of Laid Paper Dear Sir, I have read Larry Weiss' interesting articles in the past two U.S. Specialist issues [July and August], and as an expertizer for both APEX and PSE, as well as an independent expertizer, I wish to make several comments. While I would basically agree with Larry's contention that some of the expertized so-called "laid paper" varieties are not provable production varieties, I believe it is wrong to ask or expect any expert committee to present supporting documentation that laid paper was ordered by the BEP. I contend this because there are many varieties which exist and are catalog-recognized without there being supporting evidence of their origin or intent. Since the inclusion of "ribbed" paper was mentioned in the first article, that's a great place to start. No records exist to show WHY ribbed paper was sometimes used on Banknote period stamps, but those varieties have been recognized for many decades. There are also more than a few other pre-1870s U.S. stamps recognized by catalogs on "laid" paper (See Scott #63, 65, 73, etc.) and I have examined several of these over the years. While I have no idea why they were made, I can only expertize them based on WHAT I SEE. If what I see seems genuine and not artificially created (such as a missing color chemically-created), how can I ignore what I see? It seems to me that the expert committees who have issued certificates calling these stamps "laid paper" have carefully considered whether or not they appear genuinely-made or artificially-made before giving their opinion. If we were forced to follow the author's logic, the 24¢ Continental stamp could not be recognized, nor could many other listed varieties. I believe it is generally the policy of the catalogers to acknowledge the conclusions of respected expertizers by giving catalog status to items such as this, and I see no good reason to be critical of either the expertizers or the catalogers for merely listing what they see, even though possible future research may prove them wrong, as has happened in many famous philatelic examples, such as the "Knapp shift on" the 10¢ 1847 and Ted Liston's recent work on the so-called china clay papers. Sincerely, | |||||||
October 2007 |
Dear Sir, Being also a collector of Canadian stamps, the question about the 'laid paper' seems trivial at first sight to me. Then, it may not be quite so. In Scott Canada Specialized Catalog, Canadian 3d Beaver is listed as follows:
When held against the light, the "wove paper" will be opaque; on the other hand, the "laid paper" will allow us to see through (with parallel laid lines). What makes this simple test complicated is the "thin paper" variety, which also allows us to see clearly, but without parallel laid lines. In addition, the issue years cannot be used conclusively for the differentiation, because the 1868 issue of the Large Queen (Scott #31-33) was also made with the laid paper. Scott U.S. Specialized Catalog lists the "ribbed paper" varieties extensively in the Official Stamps section (O1-O93). Most of them carry only a small premium. If the APES has reference copies of the Canadian Scott #1, 4, 4c, and 4d, photos can be taken to be illustrated in a future issue of The United States Specialist. Sincerely, Dear Sir, My thanks to Bill Weiss (no relation to me) for writing on Washington-Franklin head laid paper which has turned out to be a controversial topic. I also appreciate Mr. Liu's comments on Canadian issues with laid paper. I too have participated in the expertizing processes of both The Philatelic Foundation and APEX committees during the 1980s and 1990s and so have a good understanding of how these services work. In general, they provide a great service to philately and do very well in providing accurate opinions. However, their general success is no substitute for a rigorous and thorough approach to expertizing unusual items. Also, they do make mistakes on rare occasions. Basing opinions only upon observations in the case of supposed "laid paper" Washington-Franklin head issues has led to inaccurate results. As I have shown clearly in my two articles on the subject, none of the examples actually look like laid paper in that the lines are unevenly spaced, of varying intensity, and seem to lack the occasional cross line. So, Bill's contention that it is adequate to simply base opinions on what is seen makes no sense in this case. What is seen on the stamps discussed is freak papers due to undetermined causes. Liu and Bill Weiss bring into the discussion other issues outside the Washington-Franklin heads. All of my comments only apply to those issues and I consider the past history and treatment of other issues of little relevance to the supposed existence of laid papers on Washington-Franklin heads. I note another person involved in expertizing, Ken Lawrence, was invited to make some remarks on a summary of my first article that was prepared by Linn's Stamp News (August 2, 2007; pg. 2). Linn's did not allow me the privilege of seeing these remarks and responding to them before they went into print. Those remarks also reflected an unwillingness to properly support the "laid paper" opinions and an insertion of irrelevancies into the discussion. I was quite amused to find Ken suggesting an effort to redefine laid papers to suit the issued certificates. What we have here is a case of two expertizing committees unwilling to either acknowledge the inaccuracy of their opinions or support them with appropriate rigor. These pages or The Philatelic Foundation series of books each titled "Opinions" would be ideal places to fully support their opinions. With PF and APEX issuing conflicting opinions, it is obvious a definitive treatment of the subject is necessary, including sources of laid paper. No, Bill, it is not enough in this case to simply base opinions on what you believe you have seen as there are other reasonable explanations of the appearance rather than "laid paper." Listing in catalogs based on the existing expert opinions would just compound the situation. Sincerely, | |||||||
October 2007 |
Plate Numbers Dear Sir, Recent actions by the USPS regarding the elimination of sequential plate numbers will have a profound effect on one of the oldest and most important aspect of stamp collecting. We therefore think that the recent "Opinion" article by USSS member Dr. Robert Rabinowitz in the September 3, 2007 issue of Linn's Stamp News should be reprinted in The Specialist. Rabinowitz has clearly outlined the background leading to the plate number policy and makes a reasoned argument for the USPS to reconsider the "plate number 1" program currently in effect. Members of the USSS who believe that the present policy is detrimental to the USPS and the stamp collecting hobby are urged to contact the office the Executive Director of Stamp Services, David Failor, United States Postal Service, 1735 N. Lynn St., Suite 5018, Arlington, VA 22209-6432. We also suggest that members contact their congressional representatives urging them to contact the USPS. Perhaps the power of the pen will bring a reconsideration of the policy. Sincerely, | |||||||
September 2007 |
Dear Sir, Re: "The Myth of Laid Paper" by Larry S. Weiss, United States Specialist, v. 78, no. 7, July, 2007. On a visit to the Crane Paper Museum I was shown a sample of a paper machine belt dating from the 1890s. A technical source for these is: Paper Machine Felts, Their Manufacture and Application for Improved Papermaking, edited by Laurence M. Woodside, and published by the Albany Felt Co., Albany NY, 1967.
Woodside describes the structure of these belts as having thick vertical warp fibers perpendicular to thin filing fibers (Figure 39). This particular weave is designed give the belt strength and flexibility as it travels around the various rollers of the machine. Next, a smooth felt web covers the base fabric in order to eliminate making any marks in the paper (Figure 40). Over time the felt web wears away potentially exposing the underlying weave. The felt belt is changed with regular maintenance, but Woodside reports that worn, misaligned, or out of balance rollers may cause premature wear. Should warp fibers come in contact with the wet paper they leave the characteristic corduroy pattern. Such machine marks are often reported in philatelic literature as ribbed paper. It should be noted there is a legitimate handmade ribbed variety, like that of the Austrian 1850 Issue. So, it seems the philatelic lexicon needs to expand in order to separate the unintentional machine mark from the true watermark variety. Sincerely, Dear Sir, My thanks to Mr. Valente, who by his web activity I see is a serious student of papermaking technology, for this very logical and reasonable explanation of how paper becomes ribbed. I like the use of his description of the paper as acquiring a "corduroy pattern" due to the worn felt. Whether philatelists call this ribbed or corduroy paper, it is clear it is not laid paper. Sincerely, | |||||||
August 2007 |
Board Decision Dear Sir, I read with great disappointment the board's decision to donate another $25,000 to the American Philatelic Society for an award for best article in the American Philatelist. We should be giving awards and honoring Ms. Mueller for articles and works in our journal, not in someone else's. We cannot be making donations to the APS every time they come around, that have little if any benefit to our society. This is in fact more of a donation than an award, and will probably require future monies to maintain. I would urge the Board of Governors to reconsider their decision in this matter and I certainly hope the USSS doesn't make any further donations to the APS. The $50,000 we have given them is more than enough. Respectfully, Dear Jerry, I'm sorry that you are disappointed with the decisions of the Board. Although both have been explained in The Specialist, perhaps a little further clarification may help. The Walter W. Hopkinson Memorial Literature Award for the best article published each year in The Specialist was created in 1954. To rename this award would be completely inappropriate. To create an additional award in Barbara Mueller's name for the second best Specialist article would be a gross disservice to her. Furthermore, Ms. Mueller has contributed many significant articles to the APS and a literature award in her name is very fitting. The USSS was fortunate to have been given the opportunity to name such a prestigious APS award in her name. Although you feel that there will be little, if any, benefit for funding this award, the Board felt that having the United States Stamp Society name forever featured in the American Philatelist in connection with it will significantly increase recognition of the USSS among the 40,000 plus APS members. Such perpetual publicity is not easily obtained. In addition, no further monies will be required to fund this award. Even if invested in a simple interest bearing certificate of deposit at 4% per annum, our payment of $25,000 will generate enough income to fund the award without ever touching the principal. Your letter also implies that the Board's previous decision to expend $25,000 for the United States Stamp Society room at the American Philatelic Center will be of little benefit to the Society. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever since 1926, the Society has operated something like a nomadic tribe. Our important documents, files, awards and other archival material have been moved from basement to basement as the officers have changed. It would only be a matter of time before some of these items would be lost, damaged or destroyed. We now have a permanent location not only to store these items, but also a place to honor our past members. In addition, the presence of the USSS room at the APC will provide continual publicity for the Society. One other point of interest to note is that, as I mentioned at the 2006 General Membership Meeting in Washington, the cost of obtaining a similar room at the APC now is approximately $75,000. And as with the USSS - Barbara R. Mueller Award, no additional monies will ever be required for this room. As long as the building is standing, the USSS will have a physical home. I hope that I have adequately addressed your concerns. Please rest assured that the Board always examines every proposed expenditure very carefully in terms of cost to benefit. I truly believe that these two payments will continue to benefit the USSS long after you and I are both gone. Sincerely, | |||||||
August 2007 |
Dear Sir, Hal Collins and I would like to thank Jim Robinson for reporting his find and congratulate him on having a possibly unique marginal marking. Jim O'Donnell (National Postal Museum, Smithsonian Institution) provided me with a scan of plate proof #16561 for comparison to Jim Robinson's piece. The comparison conclusively showed that the #575 was not from plate #16561. Therefore, Table 1 in the article can now be expanded by one entry, adding a Scott #575 for which the "O" marking can not be identified using the proofs at the National Postal Museum, Smithsonian Institution. Sincerely, | |||||||
August 2007 |
"Laid" Paper Dear Sir, This concerns the article in the July issue concerning laid paper [pp. 293-99]. This excellent and provocative article also mentions ribbed paper, but does not deal with it in any detail, except to note that it is "relatively common variety resulting from normal paper making processes." While this may be correct, ribbed paper was used solely for certain stamps, and is the method by which these stamps are identified. In particular, ribbed paper was exclusively used by the Continental Bank Note Company for the second printing of the 1875 special printings of the one cent denominations of the Agriculture, Executive, Justice and State Department stamps, and for the two cent and three cent denominations of the second printing of the 1875 special printing of the newspaper and periodical stamps. This paper is relatively easy to identify, with a clear description of the method in the Admiral Combs APS monograph entitled Departmental Specimens. I have written a couple of articles on this subject, including an article in the August, 2000 issue of THE CHRONICLE, in which I detailed my examination of approximately 800 of the ribbed paper second printings of the 1875 official stamps. The importance of the presence of ribbed paper is best illustrated by the discovery of what is now Scott #164. This stamp had long been suspected of existence, and was finally certified based on the fact that it was printed on ribbed paper. It is my personal opinion that the ribbed paper used by Continental was probably not specified by them, but was rather simply purchased from a vendor whose product was ribbed. Continental may not even have known (or cared) that the paper had this characteristic, and was only concerned that it produced a satisfactory product. Sincerely, Dear Sir, Many thanks for the additional insights into the importance of ribbed papers to the identification of Banknote issues. Unlike the Banknotes, there seems to be no correlation between ribbed paper and specific Washington-Franklin head issues - its appearance may be on any of the issues and its presence does not indicate any specific issue. Perhaps additional study of ribbed paper examples will reveal some correlation, but there is insufficient information at this time to make any such observations. Sincerely, | |||||||
![[Image]](image/letters-siegel-offices-in-china.jpg)
![[Image]](image/davino-letter-526-10863.jpg)
![[Image]](image/davino-letter-526-10863-inset.jpg)
![[Image]](image/davino-letter-526-10862-hand-altered.jpg)
![[Image]](image/valente-feltbelt.jpg)
![[Image]](image/letter-o-plate-marking.jpg)
Past letters . . .
![[Past Letters...]](image/right.jpg)
|