Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Hello

I am only new at learning about Thin and Thick paper and was hoping a fellow member
could please help me in identifying which type of paper these 5/- Coat of Arms have.
Also these stamp are in used condition.





Cheers
Roos

Hi,

You picked a hard stamp to find the 'Thin' papers for. You'll probably need to use a micrometer with digital readout to find those with a paper thickness of 0.096mm. In some stamps simply being able to see the watermark easily is a sign of thin paper, but if you want to be exact you will need one of these :-

_________________
Visit my Website - http://WWW.DJMSTAMPS.COM for Australia & World Stamps, Collections and Accessories

Yep Micrometer is the only way.

Unless of course you are on bay where wild guesses are the norm - "Looks to me to be the scarce thin paper - no reserve" etc

_________________
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

I will have to try and pick up a micrometer cheap as at the moment
the funds are a bit low. I am trying to work out the papers so I can add
a thin paper to my personnal collection.

Roos

I have just been looking online at the micrometers and found this one on eBay.
Would this one do the job?
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Water-Resist ... 589c5df5ef

Roos

Be careful of the type of "point" the micrometer you get uses. Some actually are a point for use with metals and situations where a spot reading is required, which are not so good for use on stamps. Look for the types that have a flat disc surface which will give a truer reading on a rough surface like a stamp.

When using be aware some inks are printed on thick enough to be account for the different between a thin or thick paper. Postmarks can also layer on thickness, or possibly thin the paper if heavily applied. So try to measure on an un-postmarked area of the design. With and without gum will difffer too. Stamps that have been soaked can also be thicker than normal (as the fibers relax the longer they remain in water and the stamp "puffs" up slightly). It is also possible to compress a stamp in order to make a thin version.

Avoid "cheap" micrometers/thickness gauges, in fact pretty much any cheap precision measuring device. Accuracy and consistency are vital when the difference between two values is smaller than the reading variation of the device. A quality device should give the exact same reading repeatedly, a cheap one will vary the readings (those cheap digital scales are notoriously bad when compared to a lab spec scale). So beware of going cheap and ending up with false positives in your determination of thick/thin papers.

Search for a 'paper micrometer'. I think $20 should get you an ok one.

Darrin.

_________________
Visit my Website - http://WWW.DJMSTAMPS.COM for Australia & World Stamps, Collections and Accessories

I have also found this one for $16.99 + $6.60 postage.
Is this what I should be aiming for
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Digital-Thic ... 0939973608

Roos

I made a scan of the device I use to measure.
I bought this in a stamp shop some years ago (6 or 7) in Austria, all information is on the label.



Faust

_________________
Always looking for KGV varieties in MUH condition.

$20 will not get you an accurate one. Ebay is full of dodgy cheap stuff coming out of China. Do you honestly think a $20 will buy an accurate/reliable precision tool? The first ebay one you posted ($50ish?) looks like it might be ok, I think it might be one I've got packed away in a drawer. I use a dial type similar to the one Faust shows, made by a reputable Japanese tool company. Some of the cheap ones I've seen end up applying pressure because they are not meant for paper, where it'll compress.

If you want to save yourself money buying the $20 types go ahead, but you can save an extra $20 by not bothering and you'll be able to pick thin/thick papers just as accurately with your fingers. Ideally you should buy in person and test the tool on a scrap of paper, take a half dozen readings (zeroing each time) and the tool should read exactly the same value each time.

Beats me how you'd get an accurate reading under 1mm without a digital readout.

Darrin.

_________________
Visit my Website - http://WWW.DJMSTAMPS.COM for Australia & World Stamps, Collections and Accessories

Exactly.

Let Roos chase his alleged 'thin" papers using a dodgy Chinese gauge.

Can't wait until it comes time to sell them to a real dealer or real auction.

Selling USED thin papers is a crap shoot at best. Most serious collectors only bother with MINT.

Literally BOIL any one of those examples above for 2 minutes in a pot or beaker, and dry it flat in a Desert Magic book and of course will look and feel "thinner" than all the others as much of the paper 'sizing" is boiled away. Durrrhhhhh.

So detecting thin paper 'with your fingers" on used copies sounds good, but is never a certainty.

Other than on ebay where the buyers are generally clueless, will anyone accept a reading off one of those cheapie gauges.

I personally wouldn't purchase a cheap one, as the saying goes "you get what you pay for".

I am leaning towards this item http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Water-Resist ... 589c5df5ef
as I believe it will do the job and last the distance.

I am not looking at selling these or selling these as Thin paper I am just looking for a
example to add to my collection.

Roos

As I said earlier...



The ones you are looking at I think might be reasonable (pretty sure I've got a set somewhere with flat batteries, prefer my manual ones anyway). To add one to your collection it might be best to find one from a reputable dealer. I do understand the want/need to do things on the cheap (I buy cheap garbage from Hong Kong/China often...but only things that suit me needs to be cheap). I'm sure you've got a large number of the 5/- stamp (like most of us) hanging around in our swaps piles so being able to self test make sense.

However, there are a lot of factors to consider. A very, unreliable and poorly calibrated gauge is not something to rely upon even if you are not looking to sell the stamp as a thin copy...to me it's important to be certain the stamp is what it is to the best of my knowledge when I add it to my collection. So a bad gauge may give you a reading of 0.001mm but it may do so with an accuracy of 0.01mm (or worse). I don't have catalogues with me but from memory the 5/- difference in thickness is around 0.015mm. So a gauge that gives you a different reading each time might easily give you the number you are looking for but still be incorrect.

You also won't have the confidence the gauge is giving you a meaningful number, if it claims 1mm how can you be sure its not open 1.1mm or 0.9mm? You may be able to test with a feeler gauge or similar if you have one but if its been used or is coated in oil to prevent rust you can't trust the reading on micrometer (you also do not want anything that might have even a light oil coating near the gauge you are going to test stamps with unless you want to end up with nice round discolourations).

Even with an accurate gauge you are not likely to get the measurement values mentioned in the catalogue for the many reasons given earlier in this thread. Though the measurements should be grouped close. When I measure stamp thickness I'll take several readings off each stamp, average them and note them down. Rinse and repeat for each stamp. Hopefully the values should end up in two groups which are tight enough (and far enough from each other) and centered on the expected values to be 95% certain of saying which are thick or thin. If the particular stamp is considerably valuable in one thickness then with any luck you have a couple that you are confident enough to send off for certification (ie a qualified opinion) if that's what you feel is best.

I'm not trying to put you off, and I do appreciate that many thick/thin stamps are not hugely valuable so investing in an expensive tool may not be appropriate. However buying an unsuitable tool is more likely to give you incorrect values, leading to false positives (incorrectly identified stamps), giving you an incorrectly filled gap in your collection and putting you out of pocket for a useless tool. Just doesn't seem sensible to me, especially on a tight budget.

Have you also considered a local stamp club? You may be able to borrow a suitably accurate tool, or take along your 5/- issues and they can do a talk/demonstration on how to accurately identify thin/thick papers and sort your stamps in the process.

Perhaps some input the ACSC:
The stamps on thin paper are from sheets with imprint issued during 1951. The paper measures approximately 0.096mm compared with the normal thickness of 0.109mm.

In my collection I have 6 MUH imprint blocks, measuring between 0.085mm and 0.11mm and a single bought as thin paper measuring 0.08mm.
I have also a £1 measuring 0.08mm, the same paper as the single above? This is not mentioned in my ACSC.

All measurements are done in the blank margin, no printing ink.

If you measure on the stamp image it will be at least 0.01mm more.

Faust

_________________
Always looking for KGV varieties in MUH condition.

I am still relatively new to stamp collecting...I wonder, Glen, if you can explain to me what you mean by the term 'serious collectors' ?

thanks

alex

_________________
Focus on the positive

I just came across this thread & I'm a bit surprised.

I don't collect them any more but my belief was they were similar to the 1d KGV G18 & 19.

I would expect the thin paper to be also brittle, obviously more transparent and slightly deeper in colour.
On that basis- & they're all nice stamps- I don't think any of them would be thin paper. Of course I can't tell their brittleness.

_________________
mobbor

I made a scan of my 5/-, perhaps this can help.
The only certain thin paper is the single.




Faust

_________________
Always looking for KGV varieties in MUH condition.

It is a pity that you put a relatively low-resolution scan here!

With a slightly higher resolution I could have told you much more about the types of paper used here!

There is a difference between paper with a linen-binding of the paper wire [during the manufacturing in the paper mill] and the twill-binding! The first [linen] was in general use since they mechanically produced paper [around 1860] and the second [twill] started around 1938[!].

Linen-binding is symmetrical, twill binding is asymmetrical!

Argentina collectors refer to granulado [linen] and rayado [twill]....

The two types of paper can be found all over the world! Before 1938 you will NOT find the twill-binding!

Third row, first stamp, symmetrical:



First row, fourth stamp, Asymmetrical:



Second row, first stamp, Asymmetrical:



Second row, fourth stamp, Asymmetrical:



I will explain it more "scientifically" later on!

Rein

My remark to you would be the same!

Make scans of the single block /stamps [at 1200dpi or higher!] and publish them here!

I am certain the asymmetrical nature of most of them will be clear at once!!!

Rein

Rein

I don't know what others got out of that, but I didn't understand a word or a diagram. Perhaps it would be better if you explained in less scientific terms. Besides, both variations weren't produced til well after 1937, so the question about the type of paper shouldn't apply.

_________________
mobbor

http://foro.filateliaargentina.com.ar/v ... ead#p67490

Linen-binding:



Twill-binding






Linen-bindng:



after connecting the cross-overs by a blue line:



Twill-binding:



after connecting the cross-overs by a blue line:



The purples lines represent diagonals our eyes are less likely to see, but still!

In the linen-binding the diagonals are symmetrical and are equidistant - the next parallel blue line is just as far way in the case of the ascending lines as of the descending lines.

In the twill-binding, however, the ascending blue lines are nearer to each other!

I hope this will make it clear why I refer to the linen-binding as symmetrical and to the twill-binding as asymmetrical. It is not just the angles of the blue lines but also the density!

I can imagine!!

Philatelists have not been acquainted with this type of approach since 1860!

It is also a matter of learning how to look!!



it is also a good thing - in fact I do it automatically and that is why I do not repeat this instruction all the time - is to turn your head [or the stamp] so the virtual blue lines will be horizontal!





Good luck, Rein

The linen-binding was used till far after 1960! So in the late 1940-ie, early 1950-ies both types of paper could be found! And you will!! Once your eyes have got used to this type of observation!

Rein

Within the symmetrical bindings of the paper wire, there are differences in density!

See the New Zealand stamps:

24 vertical lines per horizontal cenitmeter / 22 horizontal line per vertical centimeter!





The 1d King George has a finer mesh!

Examples of the linen-binding on Argentina stamps observed form the back of the stamps! The direction of paper is vertical.



When you connect the "hills" by the blue lines you can see the black rhombs in one line; even better when you turn your head a bit!





The wire structure of the linen-binding is ALWAYS symmetrical!

Rein, the 1200 dpi scans as requested, what can you tell us more?







Faust

_________________
Always looking for KGV varieties in MUH condition.

Two times the same scan, one deleted.
Faust

_________________
Always looking for KGV varieties in MUH condition.

Faust,

thank you!

Another problem! The breaking of the gum - at least if that is what it is - is more dominant than the wire structure!

Roos used stamps would not give that problem...

Rein

PS

a more darker contrast may help???

Rein, I hope this will do, the best I can get.



Faust

_________________
Always looking for KGV varieties in MUH condition.

Faust,

it is not really much better

Must be the gum....

I hope Roos will do a better scanning....

Rein

Rein

Thanks for explaining. It's just that I don't think it applies to the 5/-. The thin paper is obviously thinner, transparent, darker & brittle & pretty easily recognised even without measurement.

In relation to the KGV G18 & 19 I mentioned above the effect is exactly the same. It has now been demonstrated that G18 & 19 came from the same reams of paper. It just varied in thickness- it was difficult to source good quality paper during WW 1.

_________________
mobbor

I all of that 'what paper is it' explanantion Rein, did you manage to say which is the thin and which is the normal paper?

_________________
Greg - Looking for Goulburn Australia Cancels and Grangemouth Scotland Cancels and Covers
Member of the S.T.A.M.P Club for Slightly Twisted And Mad Philatelists - Motto: "Bring back the lick!"

I have had a look at my scanner settings and the highest resolution I can get is 600x600,
which is what the above stamps were scanned at. What resolution would be best to scan
these at?

Roos

Mobbor,

thanks for not calling me "wise guy"

If you are right why does one bother to find this allegedly thin version??? If it just a matter of variety within a certain range of the same pack of paper [are you sure it wasn't a reel cut up in sheets at the last moment??? A ream is not that?!]

My main point is that collectors do not realize that a definitive series [1937-1956] goes through a lot of changes and WHEN during that period a world-wide change of paper type has occurred that change is most likely to be found here as well.

I will show you the 4 types I have seen so far in that period!

- symmetrical wire structure 30/20
- symmetrical wire structure 24/22
- asymmetrical wire structure 30/20
- asymmetrical wire structure 30/20 - no watermark

SYMMETRICAL






ASYMETRICAL






Both stamps were issued in 1949!

to be continued ....

Rein

You're right: ream is not the right word. And I'm not saying that the thick & thin paper for the 5/- came about the same way. I guess the reason they're collected is that they are identifiable: many other Australian issues also have thin paper listed as a variation in the specialist catalogue.

I'm not even saying your analysis is wrong. What I don't see is what it has to do with the thickness of the paper.

_________________
mobbor

Mobbor,

it may have to do with the thickness if the thin paper turns out to be the symmetrical wire structure version!

In that case it will just a matter of establishing the wire structure and there will be no discussion about whether we need to measure 50 micron or 60!

In mint stamps we will have still the problem of the gum preventing us to see the structure or measure the thickness properly...

I do not agree that this stamp is identifiable. We should have known exactly what our kriteria are! I collect Israel as well and several stamps do allegedly exist on "thick" paper! That thick paper is NOT thicker than the "thin" paper, it just does not bend so well!

Rein

The more I am getting into it, the more I get the idea that Australian collectors have either never dealt with the types of paper of the 1937-1960 period OR everything has got completely forgotten...

The 1'6 Mercury and Globe has 3 printings - that is what we are to believe!

Sheet-fed recess on 01.12.1934 with no watermark and coarse perforation;

Reel-fed recess on 31.10.1937 with watermark Crown CofA and a fine comb perforation 13 1/2:14;

Idem, on 12.02.1948 but with "thin" paper!?

Having a look at this







we see a symmetrical paper wire structure - with a coarse density 24/22 - that was NOT there in 1937 and probably not before 1942! And have a look at the yellow fibers!!! This stamp by no means has thin paper...

There must have been at least TWO types of papers before we even START thinking about "thin paper"

to be continued ...

The 1937-1956 definitives series starts on watermarked British paper - Wiggins Teape??? - with very distinct rhomboidal indents at the back of the stamp. This means that the dandy-roll has made an impression at the front of the stamp. This has not always been like that - although most collectors assume that a dandy-roll always presses the watermark at the front of a stamp!





to be continued ...