Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Was wondering if anyone would be willing to answer a couple of questions for me. 'Tis be a riddle I can't answer.

In a pack from Belgium, I received a lot of late 60s, early 70s Europa stamps. You know them, the issues by European countries to honor the European Union. While there were many varieties in the pack, two stood out and cannot find the answer to either. Here's the story:

First should be simple, but so far, no answers (even by some of the best minds in UK philately). This is SG's 972 -or- Scotts' 585. The normal is on the right with the "EUROPA" being in a very light blue. On the left is "EUROPA" in a very light Turquoise green, and printed on very dull fluorescence paper. Hope the scans show.




you should be able to see the difference.
Here's the paper:



Personally, I think there were two printing, the variety being the first one, and when they ran out of paper, they went to a higher fluorescence paper, and changed the europa to a lighter blue. Should be other copies, no? ruled out fading, as the emerald green and dark blue are identical on both.
any thoughts?

On the Monaco, it's a matter of blue ink. Look at these scans:




if anything, look at the designer's name, "Lambert." It seems to me, that the blue was printed strongly on the right, giving the "pink" background a darker color, and on the lighter one (one the left) the blue did not support the background as much leaving it a lighter shade of pink.
quite a contrast, no? The plate is the same in both.
I should note that in the 30+ lots that I received, almost everyone had this pair variety. thought that was weird.
how should these be listed in the cat?

Just for clarification - these stamps have absolutely no connection to the European Union. The ones you show were issued under the auspices of CEPT and bear its' logo.

Does the Monagasque stamp just show underinking?

Thanks for bringing out the EU point.

I think it's under-inking also, as stated above. I wonder how they would be classified in a catalogue. Dark blue/light blue?
And shouldn't there be a lot of stamps in-between? hopefully, someone will have other shades.

thanks.

I very much doubt it would be catalogued. It's just not sufficiently "different" from a normally printed stamp. You find this on thousands of stamps - and they aren't in the cat.

It's not just the blue, the pink is different as well, as is the pale yellow. I think it's normal variation in printing. If it was a used stamp I would say it was from soaking.

_________________
Ian Billings - Norvic Philatelics GB stamps info: http://www.norphil.co.uk - also /catalog for our ecommerce site, blog.norphil.co.uk, shop.norphil.co.uk and Ian_norvic on twitter

I can't see any phosphor bands on the right-hand stamp although they are quite clear on the left-hand.

Gibbons lists 'phosphor omitted' at £18 but perhaps more importantly lists 'uncoated paper' at £1800.

"Uncoated paper does not respond to the 'chalky test*' and may be further distinguished from the normal chalk-surfaced paper by the fibres which clearly shown on the surface, resulting in the printing impression being rougher, and by the screening dots which are not so evident.
This applies to 1d, 4d & 5d Machins from the Cooking PSB, 3d & 10d Machin from 1969 sheets, and the 20p & 50p high Machins." (* since discredited)

In the 1969 general anniversaries set the 9d as shown and the 1s9d UK-Australia flight stamps are affected, the latter priced at only £275. At a quick glance I can't see any other commemoratives. To be proven this would need to be expertised.

_________________
Ian Billings - Norvic Philatelics GB stamps info: http://www.norphil.co.uk - also /catalog for our ecommerce site, blog.norphil.co.uk, shop.norphil.co.uk and Ian_norvic on twitter

The right hand stamp (GB) looks almost like a double print.

_________________
With kind regards, Jim

Of how many colours??? The reversed-out 1959 & 1969 look perfectly normal to me, so the dark blue would be OK; the grey of the head is slightly out of register leaving a slight white border (where the space was left in the blue). No, everything looks fine to me on that score (apart from the crease at bottom right!)

_________________
Ian Billings - Norvic Philatelics GB stamps info: http://www.norphil.co.uk - also /catalog for our ecommerce site, blog.norphil.co.uk, shop.norphil.co.uk and Ian_norvic on twitter

It's not just the blue, the pink is different as well, as is the pale yellow. I think it's normal variation in printing. If it was a used stamp I would say it was from soaking.[/quote]

Thanks. I didn't think the other colors were of enough difference to note, but I do agree with you that there is some shading difference.

All the stamps in the lot are Mint, no hinging present, or MNH.
I think it's something that the "L" in Lambert on the lighter print has only 6 dots, while the darker print has a solid 12-14, depending on what you call a "dot." I have seen less differences listed in specialized catalogues.

If anyone has a strong interest, I do have 30 copies of these two - and I don't know why every lot had such a difference, other than they were tearing one stamp off two different sheets/panes and putting on the card. I will be glad to give one in case you ever hear something. Limited to the first 10 requests. (I don't even know what they cat for.. lol.)

Going by my latest SG, 1986, it mentions that only the 1/9p has uncoated paper. If the listing has changed to include the 9p, I can get my macroscope and, if necessary, the microscope, out to see how the dots are, and if the impression is rougher or not.

I should note that both copies have bands, just that the left one showed better on the image than the right one did. Both there though. Both MNH.

I hate getting certs, as they are an expensive way to get someone's opinion... even if it's a good one.. lol. I think you guys are probably just as good... well, close enough for me.

no, no... no double printing... just a wee bit of a shift of the black and grey (light brown?) leaving the white area on the out side.

but it's a very cheap stamps, and just using that one to compare the other. I have a bunch of these.. regular ones, that is.

Yes, yes... the grey color and black outline are out of position. a couple of others are similarly misplaced.