UNUSUAL STAMP ERROR
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 03. 2023
- Today we take a look at this stamp error not listed in any of the catalogues. Is it due to chemical treatment, exposure to sunlight, under-inking or maybe something else. Please let me know your thoughts on this one as none of the experts can agree.
If you enjoyed the content and want to support the channel by buying me a coffee - I'd greatly appreciate it www.buymeacoffee.com/coinsstamps
Here are some more videos we think you will like:
WATCH NEXT:
Super Valuable Stamps from Australia - • SUPER VALUABLE AUSTRAL...
Super Valuable Stamps from USA - • SUPER VALUABLE STAMPS ...
Super Valuable Stamps from India - • VALUABLE INDIAN STAMPS...
Super Valuable Stamps from Germany - • Four Valuable and Expe...
Super Valuable Stamps from China - • SUPER VALUABLE CHINESE...
The Extremely Valuable Prussian Blue - • Valuable postage stamp...
Extremely Valuable Coin from Ireland - • EXTREMELY VALUABLE IRI...
Victorian Gold Half Sovereign - • 1899 GOLD HALF SOVEREI...
The Rare and Valuable Irish Coil Stamp - • The Rare and Valuable ...
If you enjoyed this video then please SUBSCRIBE to the channel.
If you enjoyed the content and would like to support the channel by buying me a coffee - I'd greatly appreciate it, here's the link www.buymeacoffee.com/coinsstamps
Also If you want to subscribe to the channel then please hit the SUBSCRIBE BUTTON and also the BELL ICON to be notified when each new video is uploaded. Welcome to both old an new subscribers…. Thank you for watching and taking the time to comment. Cheers - Coins, Stamps And Collectibles
The outfits on the people on the ground are a completely different colour 😳😳
Sorry to hear the ‘professionals’ were most unhelpful- very disappointing!
I'm glad I did get a response from two of them but Stanley Gibbons continues to disappoint, I think they've become too elitist
This is an interesting error for sure, not one I've seen in my searchers. Thanks for posting this 👍
Thanks for commenting, I've never seen this one too
The background also is also a different shade of more grey than the right original.While the purple shirt is more of a blue colour. The left HOUSES ARE GREY WHILE THE RIGHT STAMP IS LIGHT PINK.
It's a head scratcher
The stamp could have been on paper that caused the colours to leech when soaked for removal. I've seen this happen to a few stamps I've taken from the paper they were stuck to.
I've had paper leech into the stamp when soaked for removal but not the other way round. Could be a possibility though
The white border looks different as well could it have been rain or warter at some time
yes, the non-printed area is definitely a cream colour rather than white.
Maybe, I found it like this... I could test out another stamp by placing it in some water for a prolonged period of time
Maybe you could try talking to someone who understands the chemistry of dyes and pigments. If the red dye has partially leached out, ask them what type of solvent could have caused this? It must be a solvent that is readily available, but not necessarily something ordinarily used on stamps as the stamp could have been damaged in transit. Someone who is familiar with the dyes used in printing of paper could shed some light on the properties of these dyes. This is definitely an interesting stamp for research. :)
That's a good idea, I'll have to look into that. I'm annoyed with myself as I didn't turn the stamp over to show the reverse side to compare it with the others, it seems almost the same colour - another quick catchup video in a day or two might be in order.
Fading does not explain the fact that in the 'faded' stamp the figure on the far left in the background is wearing what appears to be a light blue dress, while in the 'non-faded' stamp that figure appears to be wearing a pale pink dress.
It is definitely coloured error. It can never be by sunlight.
I agree
Catalogues don't list half the consistent errors that occur on stamps, even the more complete catalogues and not just the simplified ones. For example, the 33p stamp from the 1993 Orchid (SG 1662) set exists with the copyright symbol and date missing. This error is consistent on all the sheets of this value that I have seen, but Gibbons doesn't list it. Likewise, the Australian 45c stamp in the Centenary of Test Cricket series (SG 652) exists with two different errors on different stamps in the sheet. - one has an extra dot and one has some missing shading. Again, these errors don't appear to be listed in any catalogues.
The whole stamp is effected and discoloured it would fit someway with sunlight however, the leaching into the white of the stamp would suggest something other than sunlight, nicotine staining as well as sunlight if it was mounted in a picture frame, my parents used to smoke heavily and I remember the artwork they had on the walls yellowing in a similar fashion.
Your thoughts on sunlight are the same as mine, the whole stamp would have been discoloured not just the red. After your comment I have given the stamp a big sniff hahahahaha - to check for the smell of nicotine, there's none to be had.
@@coinsstampsandcollectibles3552 haha will you be including the sniff test in the follow-up video? :)
Scan it then put it in photoshop and play with the hue. Since all the other red/pink colors are missing and the stamp has a slight yellowish to it instead of white I strongly suspect that is like a end of print run when the red ink was low. 100% not sunlight. Remember the red/blue/green are the colors needed for the other colors so since the blue is fine it was probably a sheet at the end of a run and instead of trashing it they decided to keep it. I would contact SG again
I just need a scanner and photoshop then I'm sorted :-) Your theory on it being an end of a print run could be the answer, thanks for your comments I appreciate them
I was thinking that it might be a counterfeit stamp so the paper and the colors don't match up
It was still classed as currency so... 🤔 could it be a counterfeit, cause think how many companies used to post everything and I think it's a great way to save money on the sly 😜🤑✌️👍
No idea, if it is counterfeit then it would be an interesting addition to the collection #Fakeforthewin
I think it is a counter fit. For sure there may be others out there somewhere so I think you are wise to share and see if any others are out there. I actually have these in my collection. But haven’t had a chance to look at them yet. So I am definitely going to check
I think it is the real deal, another subscriber has pointed me in the direction of a modern day errors catalogue and there's a similar stamp in there. Do check your stamps and fingers crossed you might have one.
The paper on the variety look more yellow then the other.
It does. but why? A colour bleed?
Did SG ever get back to you? Could I make a request? A video about the very last Elizabeth II stamps that I've still to grab for my collection.
Perhaps Stanley Gibbons are lying down in a darkened room, puzzling it over, and will be back to you in due course. For myself, as a GB QV line engraved man, I couldn't possibly comment, but it is pretty nonetheless. 😊
I hear you Terence, I do collect QV myself but this particular stamp just happened to catch my eye as I was searching through a packet of stamps
Wow - very interesting. Have an awesome day 💥! From HWFAH (Hot Wheels, Lego, Cards & collectables)👍
Nah, it doesn't look as though it's faded in the sunlight.
I'm not sure why but my last comment got deleted so I will try again. I have the Pierrons Catalogue of GB Errors and it lists twice the miniature sheet with the print error that looks similar to yours. There is a slight difference in the colour of the jacket but I assume that is because of the way you have photographed your stamp and the way the book was created. I have copied the text below. Someone has a full sheet for sale for a whopping £1600!!
F750MEc: Rosine and phosphor missing from miniature sheet
Quantity: 12 mint miniature sheets
Value: £750 (mint miniature sheet)
Notes: The dress of a lady on the right in the background of the 10p is affected;
the postman’s jacket, various buildings and outfits of people in the background of the 11 1/2p are affected; various buildings and outfits of people in the background
of the 13p are affected; and the roof of the building in the background of the 15p is
affected
F750MCf: Rosine missing from miniature sheet
Quantity: 12 mint miniature sheets
Value: £1,000 (mint miniature sheet)
Notes: The dress of a lady on the right in the background of the 10p is affected;
the postman’s jacket, various buildings and outfits of people in the background of
the 11 1/2p are affected; various buildings and outfits of people in the background
of the 13p are affected; and the roof of the building in the background of the 15p is
affected
This is great, thank you loads, I don't know why it deleted your comment... sometimes CZcams is a pain like that
Yes, I love this subject, I've got errors that are not recognised by the catalogue and love trying to figure them out.
First thing I noticed about this example is the yellow paper stock, I have a couple of examples with yellow paper from exactly this era. I'll dig them out and see if they're by the same printer.
Next thing I noticed is the yellow paper shows in the white envelope in the image, and it looks affected in a similar tone to the background/sky. Could the yellow paper have changed the red into a more orange colour and made the purple blue colour more blue green looking?
I think the ink running out is feasible but not sure it would have this effect.
To update, I've got an example of Mr Darcy 11p, SG 991, and it's yellow from leaching of dye from the envelope and it has not affected the blue colour on his coat in any way like this stamp, it makes it slightly darker.
It's a conundrum that's for sure, more head scratching is needed I think
Do you have a uv/black light, that's where I start, it helps determine if it's damage done during the removal process like the leaching theory or if the error goes deeper? what does it look like on the rear of the stamp?
@@scottishcontentcreators I do have a black light, that's a good call. I'm really frustrated with myself that I never showed the back of the stamp and am planning on doing a quick catchup video which will show the rear of the stamp. Looking at it though it shows nothing, just a plain, unhinged surface although in the top right hand corner there looks to be a small amount of black ink.
As someone who collects stamps and has an O level in chemistry I can honestly say I have no idea :)
Ha, me too zub 👍