The Machin Paper Varieties.

As per request by John Becker.

I can now report on finding two distinct papers used to print the 22p Dinosaur stamps, the variations was discovered whilst using the damp paper experimentation procedure, the like of which can be seen in the following two attachments.
Please note that all stamps depicted in the following two attachments were damp at the time the shots were taken.

Attachment 1: as seen under normal fluorescent lighting.

Attachment 2: as seen under long wave ultraviolet.

The magic is in the water !!!!!!

The same principle applies to these 1990 17p Christmas stamps, once the paper has been dampened.

The opaque paper is non fluorescent.
The translucent paper is fluorescent

See the next two attachments.


The difference in these papers has never been listed in any specialised catalogues previously, therefore you are privileged to see them in advance of other collectors.
Every picture tells a story. WM.

That was not quite what I had I mind, so I will decline taking any credit. Now you have duplicate-posted material.

Do you have any dating for the dinosaur stamps? That is, if one version was clearly first? I recall this being extremely popular from the outset and selling out in the store and from the agent, with a resupply available somewhat later.

[hy-brasil]....... Sorry but I don't have any dates available.

The differences seen in the base papers of commemoratives can also be found with definitive stamps of the same period using the damp paper method, here are (8) Harrison 17p dark blue with a centre band SG X910 as seen under 3 different light sources.

The first attachment is seen under normal light showing damp opaque and translucent type papers. >

The second attachment is seen under 50% normal light and 50% L/W ultraviolet. >

With the third attachment completely under L/W ultraviolet light. >

From images taken it is quite obvious that two distinct base papers have been used to print these stamps, one with little or no fluorescence, the other reacting quite strongly in response to the UV. WM.

Here is another value found to have been printed on two different base papers with captions. >

It would seem that many variations of coatings have been recorded and listed regarding Machin stamps, but not the difference in the original base paper that was eventually coated.

Food for thought, WM.

For Machins, there was a wide variety of papers used with different levels of fluorescent - some intentional. some not.

Good morning to you angore,
Over the past 4 years I have been finding many variations of paper both on the Wilding stamps and later on Machin ones, it's not just the fluorescent papers which I have found that are not listed but also various contaminated papers, the like of which I thought had been eradicated in the late 60s when British stamp papers were manufactured without any watermark and additional optical brightening agents was introduced into the paper.

Therefore I was quite surprised on finding several values of the Machin issue to still have fluorescent contaminating particles within them.

Here is an example of a 30p sage green on phosphor coated paper SG X980, as seen under longwave UV with a second image filtered into mono to give extra clarity.


It's not just unlisted fluorescent papers but also contaminated ones. WM.

Here is a little festive novelty : Imagine finding snowflakes on the back of a Christmas stamp. WOW!

It concerns the 18p denomination of the 1991 Christmas stamp set consisting of five values issued on the 12th of November, apparently this stamp had been printed on a paper contaminated with fluorescent fibres.

The following two attachments 1 in mono was both taken under L/W ultraviolet as evidence to that fact. >


The more issues I searched the more variances was found. WM

A contaminated paper also seems to have been used in the printing of some £1 booklet stamps that comprised of 2X2p values se-tenant with 4X24p plus 2 printed labels having guillotined edges, either to the left or to the right as depicted in this next attachment. >

The next 2 attachments is of a pair of the 2p stamps sourced from this particular type of booklet, originally taken under long wave UV, with the second one filtered into mono so as to enhance the contamination discovered.


Needless to say, this also affected the 24p value likewise!!

However, the 24p stamp printed in sheet format has also been found in using a similar contaminated paper, as can be seen with the following images. >


There are many more unlisted paper variances that I have discovered over the past few years, in which I hope to show you. WM.

WM,

I am skeptical. You "identify" this paper as "contaminated", but by 2022 Monday morning quarterback standards.

Is there contemporary evidence to document from the time of its production that the paper was considered contaminated or substandard? What were the paper specifications? What were the quality controls and tests to judge acceptability?

Perhaps John you can show me entries in specialised catalogues where these fluorescent particles in the paper have been stated to be the norm.

My findings are based on the reoccurence of this type of contamination originally found in the papers of the multiple crown Wilding stamps issued between 1964 to 1968.

Examples of which can be found in my thread by the name of "The Variations Of The Multiple Crown Wilding Stamp Papers 1958 - 1968" on this forum, currently in its early stages of composition.

As with anything newly discovered John, collectors/dealers like yourself are sceptical as to their definition and authenticity, but however these variations from the norm do exist. WM

I do not collect GB. I do not doubt that what you are finding/showing exists. I asked specifically if you knew of contemporary documentation from the time of the production. You call it "contamination". Did they call it that in the mid 1960s? You dodged this question.

@John Becker,

some variation, especially in the paper for earlier Wilding stamps has been documented, as rags were used in production of the paper.
The Machins were printed on paper similar to that used for the late Wildings. This was coated. From 1972, optical brightening agents were added to the coating. This paper was known as 'FCP' (fluorescent coated paper). Note this is purely a classification of the coating that was applied to stamps before printing. So, it says little about the base paper.

Douglas Myall has listed variations in fluorescence of some of the pre-decimal Machins (10d upwards are almost all affected) that were printed on Ordinary Coated Paper (not fluorescent coated). Douglas refers to dull and bright fluorescence, but not as bright as FCP. Again, this would apply to the coating and not the base paper. But having been printed on the web, at some point on the reel the back of the paper came into contact with the coated front.

Now, further consider that unless the stamp is unmounted mint, it has come into contact with an envelope to which it has been attached. Many of the white envelopes have optical brightening agents added. So fibres transfered from the envelopes may cause contamination. Stamps may have been soaked using water that was contaminated in some way,

Look at the 18p 1991 Christmas stamp, above. Much of the fluorescent reaction looks like a water stain. The small fibres may be transfers from paper the stamp had been attached to before being soaked off.And if all of those can be discarded as sources, you, still, are left with the fact that the catalogues focus on the coating applied to the side of the paper that was to be printed and not the natural variation you might expect to occur during prolonged print runs.

Does it constitute a different paper? Unlikely.

Does it constitute a field of study? Possibly.

The fluorescent particles found were initially identified by the post offices chief chemist Aubrey Walker in 1979, you can read the article in question in the thread I have previously quoted.

And I can inform NSK that the particles seen in the Christmas stamp paper is not a residue or a staining, but is embedded in the paper itself and is a repetition of the Wilding debacle first noted in 1979.

As a matter of fact a comment was also made by Hanns Fasching the editor of the Deegam catalogue produced by Douglas Myall of finding similar contaminations in 2015.

Even Chris Harman of the Royal stated to me that these fluorescent particles was a "variety" WM

NSK.........




I am sure that other members and viewers will make their own mind up NSK when it comes to decisions of that nature after viewing the examples I have given.

Here is one issue that must have been completely printed on a contaminated paper as virtually every stamp found appears to have similar characteristics.

If you are looking for examples of a contaminated paper that includes fluorescent particles, then look no further than the 1991 greetings (good luck) stamp series, as I suspect that the whole issue was printed on this type of paper based on my findings. >

Here are some single used examples of what you can expect to find using a long wave ultraviolet light. >

They are not a "water stain" as you have described NSK, but individual fluorescent fibres. WM.

Keep in mind that not every contaminant will react to UV light, and not everything that responds to UV light is a contaminant.