1c 1851 Plate 1-Late Stamps

AJ, welcome to the forum. Your expert advice is greatly appreciated. I hope you stick around and give advice and knowledge where you will.

AJ, your obvious line of bovine excrement betrays your true identity. You are a troll, and I don't believe that you have any friends either!

It has been brought to my attention that AJ may not be a troll. It is possible we have some differences that are worth debating. If that is the case, I will relish the opportunity.

All I know is that there is an Al Valente, who wrote an article in the American Philatelist in the early 2000s on paper of the 1857 era. He was also known in person by a friend of mine.

Coincidentally, when you first mentioned the paper on the back of that stamp you posted, the only article I could remember on anything even close to this subject was the one he had written, so I went back and re-read it in the AP. I don't think it really addressed or covered your issue, however, so I didn't have anything to report from reading it. I am happy, however, if Al wants to participate in this discussion, as the subject of paper of the 1850s has not been well covered anywhere, that I'm aware of.

We do try to stay abreast of new members and limit trolling. With regard to early paper manufacturing, the link to the article is

https: //docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=charleston

(remove the space after the https:)


In answer to an earlier post...




Images can be credited by simply adding names at the bottom of any image that is submitted and/or adding a comment in the comment field. I intentionally did not assume the responsibility of designing (or requiring) in 'image credit' support beyond having a comments field. If I had added image credit fields for each image, it would have then put me in a position of trying to verify ownership every image submitted in a community project. I am only a facilitator who is donating my time and money to help our hobby; I do not have a legal staff, a legal budget, and very limited time. I place trust in the project members to enter images and data correctly, to not abuse or break any copyrights, and to behave ethically. (Much like any other forum, Wiki, or other online community effort.) If anyone spots an issue, I trust they will contact me and allow me the opportunity to address and fix the issue. If credit is desired for anything on Stamp Smarter the owner simply should contact me and I will make sure that it gets added.

As far as I know, Stamp Smarter is the only philatelic website which supports community projects where those who contribute are given full access to the work they have donated. There are plenty of philatelic websites and forums which allow us to contribute, but none allow the contributors to download the entire database on demand. We all know how things went down on Delphi a few years ago. We all know what happens to websites when the owner/developer dies, loses interest, loses their domain names, or the site gets sold or changes hands.

But community projects can also have a downside, obviously people with editing access can make changes at will. Vetting is done by other project members and the viewing public. This means that it is possible that mistakes are made and might not be caught immediately. I also act as a 'communications facilitator' for most of the projects. If an issue arises, I jump in and make sure each project member is in the loop and everyone is on the same page. Much like my role here on SCF, I do try to visit everything that gets posted at least once a day but I am not perfect.

In event of a mistake or oversight…keep in mind that no images or data is ever lost. For images, the database only holds a 'path' to the image files; the files themselves are stored independently from the database. So in a situation where an image gets replaced in the database, the original images are still available to researchers who one day might want to revisit them. Please also note that the 3 cent project holds three images for each position, this was designed to reduce the need to overwrite exiting images.
Don

Don,
Thanks for the link to the paper article.

TX, which issue of the AP is the article in?

Mr Valente's books on paper manufacturing look very interesting.

The Article in the AP is:

"US Stamp Paper: The Problem Papers, 1857"

The American Philatelist - November 2001
Vol 115, No 11 page 996-1002.

TX, thanks. I have that issue on hand.

AJ, I would like to respond to a few of your statements if you are indeed not a troll.




My personal experience has been that the APS has clearly not always done a very good job vetting their experts. Claiming you are an expert for the APS is not in an of itself reason to listen to you and discount what I am saying. I am quite confident in the claims that I make.




My comments about paper characteristics were not about Plate 1L stamps that were printed over a very long period of time but rather Type II stamps from Plate 2 or 3 that were printed in the latter period of imperf stamp production.




All of the stamps of the 1851-61 period are on a machine-made paper. Over the several years of stamp production from 1851-57, paper may have came from several different suppliers, produced on an even larger number of machines. At a minimum, different machines were used or were rebuilt, producing a paper that was different and in many cases can be dated. If you think all of the observable differences in (1851) paper are random, then your observations have fallen short.

Well, I appreciate the kind words.

Winston, there are ways of testing for machine-made paper. Here is a quote Dr. Dard Hunter, Papermaking:

"Provided precisely the same stock is used, the greatest advantage in quality handmade paper would have over paper formed on the machine would be that the fibers of handmade paper are shaken four ways, causing them to cross and intertwine in formation. On the travelling wire of the machine the course of the fibers is limited to the side-to-side shake, which has the tendency to throw the fibrous material in one direction only. . . . "

So, I invite anyone here to test the paper on their own. First, take a look at Youtube videos on "Paper Grain." Then, experiment on your own: Place the stamp face down on a non-absorbent surface (e.g. glass). Next, using an eye-dropper, place between 3-4 drops of water on the subject. One of two reactions will occur--if the stamp curls like mad, then its machine-made paper. On the other hand, if the stamp just sits there, or curls only a little bit, then it's handmade paper.

AJ, I think my initial instincts were correct. I don't think you are who or what you say you are.

I have a fine collection of stitch watermarks that span nearly the entire 1851-61 period. That is all the evidence I or anybody else should need that the paper is machine-made.

I think the moderators should suspend your account!

Yes, well now that everyone knows how to test for machine-made paper, my work is done.

BTW, the stitches found in the 1851 issue come from felt mats used to couch and press the paper by hand. As proof, I have an 1851 stamp with vertical stitch marks caused by the mat being turned sideways. It's virtually impossible for vertical stitches to occur with machine-made paper.

Winston, do you have any 1851's with vertical stitch marks? Be honest now! :-)

I don't have any vertical stitch watermarks on any of my 1851-61 stamps. I would like to see yours, not that I am saying you are not being honest. Your challenge implies that you are well aware of how unusual that would be, in fact it may even be unique. So, you choose to go against the grain (chuckle chuckle) of reasonable thought and use a single outlier as proof of your outlandish theory that the stitch watermarks are not created by the stitches on the continuous loop of "wire" of a paper machine. Incredible.

In your first post you mention banknote papers so I presume you claim the mantle of expert in that area as well. All of the stitch watermarks that I have or have seen in the banknote era are vertically oriented. Are you going to now claim the paper was still being made by hand even up into the 1870's? I predict that you will now give an entirely different explanation for the existence of these stitch watermarks and for their orientation so as to not contradict your flimsy theory.