Are the really "reprints"?

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:54:51 -0500, Bob Watson wrote:



Tracy Barber wrote:
............
And... are there recognizable differences?

Tracy Barber

From the catalogue, I would say: yes there are.

The same plates were used by all printers, so the design is obviously
the same (unless there are printers' marks on the plate blocks).
However, from other variables such as perforation, watermark and, of
course, colour, it does appear to be possible to identify the printer.

Unfortunately, the majority of these stamps are expensive and so
side-by-side comparison of varieties is beyond my means!

I hear that!

Tracy Barber

"Stephen G. Esrati" wrote in message
...

.... snip..
the definition of reprint is that it must have used the same printing
plates.

I agree. As a philatelist i would define a re-print as: "A print, of a
previously issued stamp, made for another purpose than postage, using the
original printing material".

Off course the colour-shade needs to be close to the original.
--
Rene

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:34:03 +0100, "R.K.Jorgensen"
wrote:


"Tracy Barber" wrote in message
...

Portugal had a habit or reprinting classics years later. They are
truly a thorn in the side of us P&C collectors, because even the
decent catalogs don't tell much about differences. Yes, there are
some things recognized, but it's not that easy. There are reprint
notations by Barefoot for P&C, but I sure wish they were a bit
clearer.

My Michel Europe (1999/2000) describes the reprints of the classic issues as
follows:

1864. Thin paper, white gum
1885. Hard, strong white paper, mostly without gum
1905. Yellowish, thinner paper, white gum
1953. White, thick paper, no gum (backside print "1953" in 2 lines)

hope this can be of some help :-)

A concise, different view! Cool. Thanks!

Now - why would they reprint these stamps, except for philatelic
purposes?

I mean, there are other issues out on the counters at the moment? Why
did up the golden oldies, eh?

I'd take a reprint of #1, 3, and 4 if someone has then -
inexpensively, of course! :^)

Tracy Barber

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:30:39 -0500, "A.E. Gelat"
wrote:

I fail to understand why you define a reprint as for a use OTHER than
postage.

See my last message - philatelic reasons purely - at times.


Tony

"R.K.Jorgensen" wrote in
message k...

"Stephen G. Esrati" wrote in message
...

... snip..
the definition of reprint is that it must have used the same printing
plates.

I agree. As a philatelist i would define a re-print as: "A print, of a
previously issued stamp, made for another purpose than postage, using the
original printing material".

Off course the colour-shade needs to be close to the original.
--
Rene







Tracy Barber

"Tracy Barber" wrote in message
...

....snip
Now - why would they reprint these stamps, except for philatelic
purposes?

I dont know much about Portuguese philately, but one purpose is certain.
When Portugal joined the UPU they had to deliver a copy of each of their
previous issues of stamps to each other member of UPU. Probably, as was the
case with most other members, they did not have enough stock, and needed to
reprint them. Portugal joined UPU in 1875 and at that time not many
countries were members, but the number was greatly incresed around 1885 when
they made the second set of reprints?? Other purposes could be for world
expos, exhibitions etc.
--
Rene

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 05:00:04 +0100, "R.K.Jorgensen"
wrote:


"Tracy Barber" wrote in message
...

...snip
Now - why would they reprint these stamps, except for philatelic
purposes?

I dont know much about Portuguese philately, but one purpose is certain.
When Portugal joined the UPU they had to deliver a copy of each of their
previous issues of stamps to each other member of UPU. Probably, as was the
case with most other members, they did not have enough stock, and needed to
reprint them. Portugal joined UPU in 1875 and at that time not many
countries were members, but the number was greatly incresed around 1885 when
they made the second set of reprints?? Other purposes could be for world
expos, exhibitions etc.

And for future shysters to try to eek a few $ out of the unsuspecting.
Fortunately, it hasn't happened to me yet - with P&C.

Tracy Barber

Bob Watson wrote in message ...
From the catalogue, I would say: yes there are.

The same plates were used by all printers, so the design is obviously
the same (unless there are printers' marks on the plate blocks).
However, from other variables such as perforation, watermark and, of
course, colour, it does appear to be possible to identify the printer.


All of those printers only printed from the PB plates on paper
supplied by the Tasmanian Post Office (initially no watermarks, then
double lined numeral), and *all* sheets were issued to the PO
imperforate. The only reliable way to distinguish printers is by the
shade where that can be dated. The imperforate stamps were later sold
to the public through licesnsed vendors, many of whom privately
perforated them (hence the many rare and varied perfs and roulettes).

Bassett-Hull's book of 1890 details many of the printings which
information was extracted from official Govt records of the day. This,
together with many well known shade studies allows the assignment of
major shades to particular printings, and hence to particular printers
that held the contract. Complicated?, yes, but thats the facts.

The big diffiuclty comes with any stamsp fo that age - is the shade
you see, the original printed shade?

I agree with you on the expense advice from personal experience -
Tasmania is my main collecting field.

tazy