Question regarding paper

Malcolm,

so far I had been studying the more modern stamps and their papers, but
this last year I jumped into Argentina to find out that there was a lot to
be done still and that the UV-lamp would not be much helpful.

You have to analyze the papers for the Argentinean collectors, to explain
to them what to look at and for! With or without coating; direction of
paper mesh [something New Zealand collectors appear to be most familiar
with !?]; the imprint of the wire of the paper machine in the paper
itself; etc.... Basic notions really or at least they should have been
basic

Also we should realize that the stamp paper industry has been globalized a
long time ago and that we can find Italian paper manufacturers delivering
paper for Argentinean stamps around 1912 but probably for a lot of other
countries as well. The same goes for Dutch, French, German and English
suppliers..

Harrison and Sons were the main suppliers - globally - since 1970 til 1995
for stamp production and after that Tullis Russel (Coated Paper Ltd] took
over..... An inventory of such paper supppliers is obligatory!


groetjes, Rein

Op Mon, 10 May 2010 16:03:13 +0200 schreef malcolm
:

Rein

I do agree. However as long as catalogues insist on using the term "
Chalky " I think we have to get to grips with this even if we do not
agree with the term.

The biggest and original usage, historically, appears to be the King
George V era of British Empire- as used in Stanley Gibbons catalogues
- and perhaps the term should be used for this particular case only. I
would agree with you that the use of the term appears to have become
somewhat abused as papers used today have no resemblance whatsoever
with those of that era.

I have not used the silver test personally on anything - as I would
only use it on the margins of a marginal copy - and never on the stamp
itself !!

Do believe me when I tell you that no UV test I have ever used can
differentiate between KG5 papers - and I am willing to believe that
the "silver" test is the only one which would work (scientifically).

I think that the only test which stands examination is to find a stamp
of a series which only appears on one paper ( preferably one stamp for
each of the different papers) for use as a control then examine ( by
eye ) each copy you receive against these. There are sometimes nuances
of shade which differentiate these even when unlisted and sometimes
the general appearance of the paper is different. However on used or
dirty stamps this is not always helpful. Dated copies can assist but
caution should be used with dates just after the issue date of the new
version ( or any copies from remote or very rural post offices with
projected low usage ).

The catalogues appear to be very reluctant to discuss flourescence not
related to postal mechanisation, but sometimes the term "chalky" is
used to describe this ( presumably someone somewhere used the silver
test). A good example of this is the South Africa 1961 definitives -
third series ( original design with wmk RSA in triangle dating from
1963 or thereabouts ).This is described in SG as chalky but compare
this paper with the 2 earlier series ( Arms wmk and no wmk) under the
lamp and the flourescence is very evident. When dealing with a large
quantity of these stamps I use the lamp before I even look for a
watermark ! Even where these are mentioned exact ( or earliest known)
dates are seldom discussed. We have already discussed Rein Netherlands
"Queen" definitives issued on on ordinary, flourescent and
phosphorescent papers - the phosphorescent is easily dealt with but
more precise dating information would be useful for used uncoated/
flourescent examples. I have managed to sort 90% of these , but there
are still a few "borderline" cases.

On modern stamps another problem is when you have an "all-over"
phosphorescent tagging superimposed on stamps which may or may not
have been printed on flourescent (or other) coated paper in the first
place. I have no real evidence for this but my theory is that the
difference in intensity of phosphorescent reaction on modern Italian
definitives for example may be as a result of different underlying
papers - and I think that even the lw and sw bands on philatelic lamps
are too broad to examine this. What you need are lamps which emit
ONLY the wavelength which will excite a specific reaction ( and this
will be different for every stamp - or at least every chemical used
in stamp production).

We know I think thanks to you and others much more about modern papers
( and much more technical information is the public domain ), but I
fear that due to loss of records ( and lack of scientific records
being kept in the first place), and deterioration of papers through
time - much about earlier stamps may never be known - especially those
of historically "unpopular" countries.Compare the information on
Argentinian stamps for example ( how sycophantic am I ?) with that of
other South American countries.

A lot more scientific basis needs to be used in identifying papers -
personally I think that papers is the most difficult of all the areas
of philately to get to grips with - it is also the area which the
philatelic press seems to be the most reluctant to discuss - perhaps
because it is so "difficult".

Malcolm



--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:
http://www.opera.com/mail/