Discussion of stamp gum offsets and printed on the gummed side

DJM · Post by **DJM** » 01 Feb 2010 22:17

.
Hi all,

Can anyone tell me what stamp 'offset' is ???? Is it a stamp that has been printed on both sides, or is it ink that has soaked through to the other side ?

Thanks.

Post by **admin** » 01 Feb 2010 22:20

.
Actually neither of those Darren.

A mirror impression on gum -- as a slightly wet sheet had another sheet placed on top of it.

Our American cousins for their usual weird reasons choose to use the term gum set-off.

Here is one on QV Canada -

Allanswood · Post by **Allanswood** » 01 Feb 2010 22:32

It's curious isn't it?

I always thought that the sheet was first printed, then gummed, then perforated.
So the inked mirror print should be under the gum?

As the sheet on top landed on a still damp sheet below? And was then gummed?

(if not, I'll crawl back to my cave....again).....

PS Nicely placed perfs!

DJM · Post by **DJM** » 01 Feb 2010 22:33

Thanks !!!

Post by **admin** » 01 Feb 2010 22:36

.
Allanswood - for the past century at least, stamps are printed on pre-gummed paper in 99.9% of cases for near all countries.

Post by **admin** » 01 Feb 2010 22:42

.
The Australia 1967 decimal 5c Queen offset is reasonably common for instance -

DJM · Post by **DJM** » 01 Feb 2010 22:53

Hi Glen,

Is the 5d Queen offset for sale ?

Darrin.

Post by **admin** » 01 Feb 2010 23:05

Darrin .. not sure if I still have that, but they are about $50 when they turn up if offset is strong.

You see the 1c brown QE2 as well, fairly often.

traralgon3844 · Post by **traralgon3844** » 01 Feb 2010 23:14

I have been reading the Australian Stamp Monthly of 1941 on the train and it has an interesting article on an Offset on a 2 Shilling 1st Watermark Kangaroo.

Mr CATO makes comment that "This is an excellent example of the true offset, which is not caused, as many collectors believe, by wet sheets from the printing press being placed on top of the other, but is a direct impression of the plate, which has been printed on the pressure roller, and later transferred to the back of a sheet."

The article goes on to explain that the impression of the stamp is transferred to a pressure roller then onto the reverse of the next sheet of stamp paper fed through the machine.

I won't be home for a day or so, but will scan the full article when I get home.

Any printing experts out there?

Allanswood · Post by **Allanswood** » 01 Feb 2010 23:25

traralgon3844 wrote:I have been reading the Australian Stamp Monthly of 1941 on the train and it has an interesting article on an Offset on a 2 Shilling 1st Watermark Kangaroo.

Mr CATO makes comment that "This is an excellent example of the true offset, which is not caused, as many collectors believe, by wet sheets from the printing press being placed on top of the other, but is a direct impression of the plate, which has been printed on the pressure roller, and later transferred to the back of a sheet."

The article goes on to explain that the impression of the stamp is transferred to a pressure roller then onto the reverse of the next sheet of stamp paper fed through the machine.

I won't be home for a day or so, but will scan the full article when I get home.

Any printing experts out there?

OK, I've done some offset printing in a past life so this is my take on how it happens.

Sheet 1 goes through OK, pressure roller and plates rotate around for next sheet but sheet 2 doesn't feed via the pickup stack.

So sheet 2 comes through next. But now we have a plate print ready on the front and a reverse "Offset" print from the pressure roller on the back as it took the ink that should have been the 2nd sheet print.

The pressure roller may not be metal but rubber - its just keeping even pressure on the back of the sheet to obtain the even impression and ink transfer. So it won't have a fully inked image, is warmer and also now has a slightly drier ink.

And we get the mirror image the "Offset" on the back of the sheet. May not even be noticed by the printers as the front is fine, the press keeps running and the sheets stack up.

May have happened often depending on weather changes, humidity in the air and shutdown / startup each day.

So I guess when they say "Offset" they mean it both ways - what it looks like and where it happened - on the press itself.

edited in : Perhaps that's why an offset stamp has such a nice even print - it was actually pressed (in reverse) by the roller from the printing press. Glens example above shows very nice mirror prints evenly printed with a lot of detail. Fresh sheets falling onto the finished stack would need to have a fair amount of pressure on them to pick up such even offset images.
.

traralgon3844 · Post by **traralgon3844** » 02 Feb 2010 20:12

The article as promised.

Allanswood · Post by **Allanswood** » 02 Feb 2010 23:19

I think I'm closer to the mark than the writer sugests.

He mentions about "no sheet" going through and saying "Of course this does not actually happen".

Sorry but he is mistaken.

I've watched many times and operated machines as this exact thing happens. If you are using a single sheet fed machine with either roller or air suction pickups - if the sheets have not been "fan loosened" well (a bit like getting a deck of cards ready to shuffle - it loosens each sheet from the others in the stack so they slide freely), prior to printing, it can easily miss a pick up and feed a ""no sheet" through the rollers. Happens very easily.

Doesn't happen if the machine is fed by a roll of paper - as many modern (or larger machines did such a newspaper presses) machines might - their just one long sheet that is cut later, so can't miss a feed.

He mentions that the sheet gets folded over instead. Yes that too can happen and will give you the folded roo as photographed, but depending on how large the folded area is the rest of the sheet can have a whole block of reversed roos - which he doesn't show.

And I would seriously doubt that any folded sheet would then just be unfolded and perforated and sold. The printer knows it hasn't printed properly and it would be destroyed as printers waste.

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 02 Feb 2010 23:52

The 5 Rupee stamp of the 1931 Charkhari pictorial set, SG 53, offers some splendid examples of offsets of the frame:

and on the back:

(And by the bye, if some mad impetuous fool had paid full face value for this block - 20 Rupees - he (or she) would have been laying out about 3 weeks' wages for a Charkhari postman at the time. Rather puts things into perspective, doesn't it?)

starling · Post by **starling** » 28 Nov 2010 19:29

I found the following 1d red KGV (comb perf, single watermark) in an album which described it as being a printed on the gummed side error.

The write-up in the album states that it is similar to an example which sold in a Melbourne auction (doesn't specify the auction house) on 1st March 1997 for $500. The write-up also mentions that this error is listed in the 1994 ACSC catalogue (page 4/59), which states that at least three sheets of this error were issued.

I don't have a 1994 copy of the ACSC and as far as I can see, this error isn't listed in the current 2007 edition of the ACSC, was it de-listed because these were later found to be forgeries or just extreme tin-shed flaws?

Some expert guidance would be appreciated.

Scott

mcgooley · Post by **mcgooley** » 28 Nov 2010 19:56

No "expert" guidance here, but these little 'do-hickies' have shown up from time to time.

For example, I have a friend who specializes in Australian 1d Red KGV, and their stockbooks are littered with these "freaks".

Mind you, this friend has

tens of thousands of the little bu**ers, because their playground is the dies, flaws, and shades of this one stamp.

Tinshed? dunno

forgeries - doubt it

stuff-up? - I would say, DEFINITELY

Allanswood · Post by **Allanswood** » 28 Nov 2010 21:28

I'll throw my spanner in the works as I notice this stamp is used? And therefore soaked off?
If it was printed on the gummed side it was printed onto the gum (the gum was there first).

When soaked off after being cancelled the ink should have come off with the gum.

Most "printed on the gum" are known mint - for the above reason.

Otherwise, very dry ink or tinshed?

They are still listed in the ACSC eg/ #71 clr/c - gummed side approx $800-1500 . #71 ca dry ink approx $80.00

The Pom · Post by **The Pom** » 28 Nov 2010 21:41

It's an extreme example of a Tin Shed. Not dry ink, not printed on the gummed side.

Allanswood: what edition of the ACSC are you using? In the latest (2007), the dry ink is $150 used, and the printed on gum side is not listed.

At the top of page 4/67 it clearly states:

"29. Serious doubt has now been cast on the existence of any examples of this stamp printed on the gum side. No satisfactory example has been identified by acknowledged current experts. All supposed examples are considered to be "tin shed" flaws, with patches of gum on the face of the paper giving the false impression of printed on gum errors"

starling · Post by **starling** » 28 Nov 2010 21:46

Allanswood

Thanks for the reply. I still can't see the printed on the gum side listing in my 2007 ACSC (I don't quite understand your clr/c notation).

If the oil based ink can penetrate paper then I have no problem with it partially penetrating a layer of gum as well. Obviously the penetration through gum and into paper isn't as effective and most of the ink floated away with the gum when it was soaked. It looks as though the cancel has mostly washed off as well, which kind of lead me away from the extremely dry ink hypothesis.

I may need to send it off for a certificate anyway. I tried to contact Michael Drury using the address he has supplied in the ACSC but didn't get a reply. Does anyone have his up-to-date contact details or suggestions of another suitable certifier?

Scott

Post by **admin** » 28 Nov 2010 21:47

I'll side with The Pom here - but a very striking piece all the same.

Scott the postmark is the main clue here.

Remember that is applied over a normal looking stamp, which has had gum get on the face AFTER being printed.

Soak stamp and that gum dissolves and floats off. . as will the black postmark ink on top if it!

starling · Post by **starling** » 28 Nov 2010 21:52

The Pom

Thanks for your reply, I obviously didn't look hard enough in the ACSC

Now I see footnote #29, and that clears everything up nicely! Strange about the cancel appearing to be partially washed off as well but it could just be an uneven, light cancel.

Do you think it is worth getting certified?

Scott

The Pom · Post by **The Pom** » 28 Nov 2010 21:54

starling wrote: Strange about the cancel appearing to be partially washed off as well but it could just be an uneven, light cancel.

Scott

Read Glen's post above.

starling · Post by **starling** » 28 Nov 2010 21:56

Glen

Yes, with the ACSC footnote and the physical evidence of the postmark, I am quite satisfied that it is an extreme Tin Shed Flaw.

Thanks for everyone's input and helping me clear this up

Scott

Post by **admin** » 28 Nov 2010 22:02

starling wrote:
Do you think it is worth getting certified?

Well you should be certified if you do. Open and shut case.

Put the $50 on the red hot favourite at Randwick next race, and you'll use it far more wisely.

starling · Post by **starling** » 28 Nov 2010 22:17

Glen

I'll print out the responses here as my certificate

Scott

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 29 Nov 2010 09:52

admin wrote:I'll side with The Pom here - but a very striking piece all the same.

Scott the postmark is the main clue here.

Remember that is applied over a normal looking stamp, which has had gum get on the face AFTER being printed.

Soak stamp and that gum dissolves and floats off. . as will the black postmark ink on top if it!

Just one minor correction, the gum has to have gotten onto the face before printing.

Global Admin · Post by **Global Admin** » 29 Nov 2010 12:20

PeterS wrote:
Just one minor correction, the gum has to have gotten onto the face before printing.

Oops - correct. My fat fingers.

The primitive tin shed type premises (literally) where the stamp production took place in MEL, was where the "tin shed" term came from.

Somehow sheets of unprinted stamp paper came into contact with drops and smears of stamp gum. Some of the issues - certain Die 2 rough paper, and all the Die 3s were on HAND gummed paper.

When the red ink was printed over the top of this, the stamp looked perfectly normal to stamp checkers etc. Only when soaked off by collectors would the gum drops/smears liquefy .. and along with it the red ink printed on top .. and any postmark ink on top of that.

Also being in the midst of WW1 where most of these occurred, most of the able bodied men in the country were overseas fighting the war, and I understand a good deal of the stamp printer workforce were quite inexperienced, and a lot of workers were women. Nuff sed.

Lakatoi 4 · Post by **Lakatoi 4** » 18 Jun 2011 17:18

This subject was mentioned as a possible topic in another topic I was just reading through here. To my knowledge it hasn't been done yet, so why not

Please post up under here, any offsets or printed on gummed side stamps you have (best to show both the front and rear of the stamp as the gummed side is often unrecognisable).

I'll kick it off with a $1 Flinders from the decimal Navigators issue:

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 18 Jun 2011 23:19

OK, you want printed on the gummed side? I give you the Bhopal 1908 1 Anna, SG 100a

and here is the stamp printed on the un-gummed side, SG 100:

Or offsets? How about this offset of the frame on the Charkhari 1931 5 Rupee?

And here's the other side:

And one you don't see every day: gummed both sides, including over the printing, on the Charkhari 1931 ½ Anna, imperf horizontally, SG 45c:

Now let's see Australia beat that one

librarianc · Post by **librarianc** » 19 Jun 2011 00:05

Here is one that I recently sold off my Varieties web page:

Canada SC#460 (Unitrade #460fi, Darnell #567f) 6¢ black definitive printed on the gum side

John A

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 19 Jun 2011 00:37

Having just rather-less-than-half answered a question about Morvi State across in the Uglies thread, I was reminded that I have this example of Morvi SG 4c

the 1931 ¼ Anna, printed on the gummed side and in the wrong colour. (It should have been red; blue was the colour of the ½ Anna. However, the wrong colour printing was so large, it rates £4.25, against £7 for the right colour.)

Here is a sheet of the error of colour, but printed on the ungummed side of the paper (SG 4a):

Throgmorton · Post by **Throgmorton** » 19 Jun 2011 00:45

My WA 2d Revenue Drink Coaster,

Coffee Side:

Table Side:

Seriously, this is how I found it - doesn't go anywhere near beverages any more. At least the bottom nine are OK.

Regards,

Paul

Post by **gavin-h** » 19 Jun 2011 02:32

Did someone mention "Offset"

<------

My avatar is a near-perfect offset of a German Soviet Zone loacl issue from Meissen, issued 1945/46.

The Pom · Post by **The Pom** » 19 Jun 2011 09:05

Diver Pete · Post by **Diver Pete** » 19 Jun 2011 13:16

This is an imperforate sheet listed in the Australian Air Mail Catalogue as Eu 768d.

The sheet (sheetlet?

) is printed on BOTH sides!

Front

Back (gum)

Yes, that is an unfortunate little rust spot but it clearly demonstrates that it is the same piece

The Pom · Post by **The Pom** » 19 Jun 2011 20:53

The Pom · Post by **The Pom** » 19 Jun 2011 21:32

Lakatoi 4 · Post by **Lakatoi 4** » 20 Jun 2011 14:47

Great stuff guys, you examples are the exact reason why I started this topic

Here's a 4d. Koala:

Post by **GlenStephens** » 20 Jun 2011 15:38

I always liked this one -

huanga · Post by **huanga** » 20 Jun 2011 18:35

This is a GB. SG439.
Looking at the above, it seems to qualify for this post?

Does it?

Huanga.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 20 Jun 2011 18:47

Offsets are caused when a sheet just printed sits on the sheet underneath where the ink on that is not yet dry, and the impresson iis transferred in mirror image, OR where a pass of the printing cylinder prints onto the roller, and that is picked up by gum of next sheet thru.

There is a third "offest" looking result and EVERY collector has created those.

Open up an old glassine where 3 or 4 blocks of the same value are stored there and have got slightly damp and have lightly "stuck".

When carefully peelling them apart, part of the face gets left on the gum.

The GB ½d green looks like that - the missing ink on face of the RH unit seems to bear that out.

huanga · Post by **huanga** » 20 Jun 2011 19:06

Thank you Glen. By the way, there is no connection between the two stamps. I added the right hand one to make clear what stamp my post was refering too. However, I'm now clearer that there exists a third possibility. I've just had another look at the R/H stamp, and the picture is even clearer.

Huanga.

Lakatoi 4 · Post by **Lakatoi 4** » 20 Jun 2011 22:18

1d. QE Red-Brown 1941-1943:

Post by **GlenStephens** » 20 Jun 2011 22:28

Lakatoi 4 wrote:1d. QE Red-Brown 1941-1943:

Tony .. the very rare "type 3" offset .. see 2 posts above.

Lakatoi 4 · Post by **Lakatoi 4** » 20 Jun 2011 23:04

Glen, your 4d. Vic. is obviously and undeniably one. So what exactly about my 1d. QE and the GB halfpenny leads you to say that they are merely picking up the ink of a stuck stamps

Is it the fact that mine isn't aligned with the face design compared to my other one's

Is it the "ghosting" effect of the ink on the paper of the earlier one's compared to the later one's

The Pom · Post by **The Pom** » 21 Jun 2011 02:54

Lakatoi,
The difference in the way the "offset" was created is given away by the sharpness of the mirror image.

In a genuine offset, created at the time of printing, the ink involved is still wet. This leads to a blurred image as the ink soaks into the gum of the stamp above, plenty of examples shown above show this effect.

The "Type 3" offset described by Glen happens, as he says, years after printing when ink gets transferred from one stamp to the next when the gum of the top stamp gets slightly damp.

In this case, the ink involved in creating the "offset" is dry, so there is no blurring of the transferred image.

The 1d Red brown was stored on top of another 1d Red brown and something red - probably a 2½d from the same set - and picked up a bit of both when they were peeled apart. This couldn't have happened at the printing stage.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 21 Jun 2011 03:01

Like Paul's 2d above, the WA Swan Duties are spectacular and affordable examples of true offsets.

I have this block for sale, and it is an absolute corker!

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=19908

Post by **GlenStephens** » 21 Jun 2011 03:17

Lakatoi 4 wrote: Is it the fact that mine isn't aligned with the face design compared to my other one's

Well your "offset" is SIDEWAYS if you look carefully.

Also has junk on FACE as well, so was in an envelope all gooed together due to humidity. Front to front, sideways and who knows what was in there.

Lakatoi 4 · Post by **Lakatoi 4** » 21 Jun 2011 23:42

Ahah, amazing what a good look at something can do

Mea culpa with that one. Fortunately it was in a lot with a ton of other stuff so it cost me zilch.

MrSamoa · Post by **MrSamoa** » 22 Jun 2011 03:33

South Australia

Probably was stuck over a lettersheet.

RobRoyH · Post by **RobRoyH** » 22 Jun 2011 05:21

Here would be my most impressive offset print, (if it is indeed an offset print, there are a couple of things I don't understand about it. Printing technology is not my forte).

The stamp itself is a State of Arizona Fishing License Stamp. Here's the front-

And here's the reverse, showing MOST of the red seal only -

There is no gum. That was soaked off long before I acquired it. Obviously the image on the reverse was created under the gum.

When held to the light the red seals EXACTLY line up... so is this bleed through instead of an offset print?

No evidence of this effect shows up on any of the 10 or so stamps I've got or seen in the same series.

How does one explain the clipped off right side of the seal as seen from the back?