Question Regarding BEP Qa Inspections

Uknjay,
In the past, I have often raised the issue about production inspection drawings and/or other Quality documentation that might be used at the BEP.

As a pressman, how did you determine what was and wasn't acceptable in terms of the quality of the printing? Was this determination made with the help of a drawing or other document or was this something that just came with training and experience?

Did the inspection personal have any drawings and other QA documentation they used to determine what constituted 'acceptable' or 'not acceptable'? (For example, how much of a color shift was considered acceptable? )

Thank you for your feedback.
Don

Don

Yes a print of the stamp or product to be printed was oftentimes included in the print packet. This only gave you what the item was to look like. The pantone color or colors was give on the work order to be used. Each plate would have the color used with that plate named on it. The pressman man would set the ink for each color on the press. Most often a standard basic primary colors ( cyan, magenta, yellow, black) were used. If an ink color was required that could not be produced with the process colors you would hand mix the ink. Each color has it on recipe to go by. The mixing of new colors are mostly done by eye and experience. This is where you would get you color varieties. If you mixed the ink slightly different than the recipe given. You would end up with a different shade. As long as it was not to far off from what you should have it was used.

To quality control they did inspect the printing for mistakes,
Mis spelled words
Color regeneration
The ink saturation
Gum thickness
Perferations set up (die cut on modern stamps)
Breakage, cracked, worn or damaged print due to faulty plates


All of the above would be set up by the pressman. QT would only look over the product to give an other opinion. It was mostly left uo to the pressman. QT looked at it at the beginning of the run and may be a few times into the run. It was left upto to pressman to keep the print as set up in the run the same threw out the run. The pressman would match the sample from the previous run if any in print packet. This to ensure consistency in the present and past runs.

If tagging was required the QT would check to make sure the coverage and consistency. This was done with uv lights in a darkened space. The print floor was to bright to make any judgement.

In printing many mistakes can be made. Most other minor mistakes would be over looked by printing personnel and QT. It only come into question in the collecting community, as the smallest infractions will constitute noticing. Today a very small flaw will be notice and committed on by the collector. That in another field of printing it would be over looked.

The BEP gave more leeway in production of stamps than in currency production. The slightest imperfection in currency would be not acceptable.

Don, does this answer your question?

Yes, thank you very much.

I have a group of friends who are Bank Note/Engraving specialists who have made the same point in your final paragraph; that bank note quality was much more stringent than stamp production. They make this point often when we discuss the plating of the early US stamps; they point out the significant differences between the care taken with bank note production and the stamp production.
Your great description above should also be noted by EFO collectors of stamps, the less stringent inspection criteria makes EFO (errors, freaks, and oddities) more likely to be found in the total population. These are 'just stamps' and not as critical as something like a bank note.
Don

Stamps are produced for a one time use as currency is used in commerce everyday over and over again. It is more likely that currency will be counterfeited than stamps ( unless you are the Chinese they are equal counterfit opportunists). Stamps are legal tender but are not used in commerce as currency. Unless they have changed to law regarding stamps as legal tender for upto I think $25.00.

I will have to be more diplomatic when I answer some question in here. I answered as to my opinion on a 1610c stamp block. I gave my opinion as it being counterfit. Which I do stand by opinion to it being counter fit. One for sure indication is the gutter on left side of stamp block. This could not have happened if this block is from the same press sheet as the know genuine 1610c known. If it was the gutter would be present on those stamps as well. Which there is no gutter stamps know from that sheet of stamps. They would only be one press sheet of stamps checked and returned to press cart. That would only be four sheets of 100 produced. If that plate block is genuine that would mean two press sheets were made. Also the print is fuzzy in appearance not crisp as on the genuine examples. This indicates duplication of design as it degenerated from duplication. The registration boxes do not match giving another example of why it could not be genuine. I seem to have put a bee under some settles by saying it is not genuine. Even though it is obvious by just the pictures posted.

Don,

I have a question more of a statement about the 1610c. Why was an CIA officer or agent buying stamps at a local post office. They would have had to remit cash or a check to pay for those stamps. If the CIA needed postage stamps. They would have issued a purchase order for the amount of stamps needed. It would have included demominations and number of stamps requested. This would have been given to the postmaster general"s office. Then the package of requested postage assembled and delivered by carrier to the CIA headquarters. Then the purchase order handed over to the controller of the treasury and funds transferred to the postal service. It would have been paid out of the allotted funds for postage for the CIA. There is a reason why five stamps were missing and the post office window clerk did not notice what they were selling. I believe they are an untold story of why this happened and it is different than what the official line given. I guess we will never really know. I will also note the person counting out the postage sent to an post office would have noticed this error and pulled it from sell. It passed threw to many hand to have went unnoticed before being sold over the counter to a CIA Agent. Then the other three sheets to have never been found at an other office or in stock. The controllers know where they sent high denomination stamps around the date these were issued for sell. They would have issued a pull order for those sheets and requested them back. I am to believe they never got the sheets back. This in it self is hard for me to beleive. I said they are an untold story here and I for one do not want to look. Just a thought to you and speculation on my part.

uknjay,

I, and I know many other members here, greatly appreciate your willingness and interest to answer the questions posted on this board. Thank you. I hope you continue to actively engage in discussion and answering of the questions, as your wealth of experience and information will add to the value of this board.

Some cautionary notes: You may encounter some that have a different agenda than only informative, but that will be a small minority, as your information based on your experience, and probably notes/references is much treasured here. There are many here who have other related areas of expertise/experience, that may at times produce more heated discussion, whether intended or not - if so, don't let it stop your interest in continuing to contribute to this board.

Dave

Dave,

Thank you for your kind words. I intend to continue my disuccentions on the board. I will give my opinion on items sent to me. As it is my opinion and it costs nothing for me to give it. Those asking may value it as they will. Like anyone I have an opinion and not everyone is going to like it. That is fine with me I am open minded and are capable of being mistaken. I can only say I will give an honest opinion with no hidden agenda. I buy stamps but do not sell them. Once again thank you for the kind words and the heads up. I will be more diplomatic in the future in giving my opinion. It is not my intent to cause any discord between the membership.

So even for engraved printing the mixing of inks was done by the
BEP employees on site.
I always thought they used spot colours premixed by the ink
companies.
The supplier would have probably done it cheaper and gotten better
colour consistency over a long print run.

I can see using the primary colors ( cyan, magenta, yellow, black)
for most of the multicolour litho/offset and for photogravure printing
but not for one, two or three colour engraving

Perhaps you should consult for the Philatelic Foundation. Good stuff!

In most cases ink is bought in bulk. They are times where you have to mix a smaller amount of ink for a low count runs. It would cost to much to buy the minimum require. As for engravement inks they are specific to what is needed. The ink would not mix inside the engravement etchings. Let's say you are at the end of a run and only need a few pounds of ink to complete the job. It is more cost effective to mix a few pounds than to buy a lot of ink and have to store it. If you mix ink and do not use all the ink you would place it in an ink can and place the pantone color number on face of can. Then store that on you ink shelves. I would always use the inks that were opened first. This way cutting down on any spoilage.

You are correct it is easier and more convenient to buy premixed ink. I would not say the ink supplier kept constant ink color. You had best check each time up opened new ink. Trust but verify is always best. Ink will vary in shades sometimes even from the supplier. That is where some of the color variations come from. They can also come from using old inks from previous runs. It can happen when they are mixed on site.

Some inks can change color slightly do to exposures to light and air. Some can change due to ink being over heated or cold. It is best to keep ink in an environment that is kept at a constant temperature and in enclosed storage containers that is air tight. They are times chemicals and pigments from the manufacturer may differ and that can change the color shades. Plus you do not know for sure how long and ink had been made. Even thou a manufacturer date and lot number is present on each container. I found you can not always trust the information provided by the vendor.

Thank you for taking the time to share your experience and
knowledge.

Much appreciated

I had the chance to visit the BEP twice and on one occasion I saw the inks being used. They were very dense/thick/viscous and all looked black n the bucket (even the yellow as I recall) and only became visible as the printed colors we see when spread very thin, so it is easy to see how the wrong color could get used if they weren't careful (like the black field of stars on the 20c & 22c Flag coils).

I too am surprised to hear they mixed colors there as the inks are so thick it would be hard to completely mix them by hand and not end up with variations within the batch. Or did they have a mechanical mixer?

"Also the print is fuzzy in appearance not crisp as on the genuine examples. This indicates duplication of design as it degenerated from duplication."

Have you seen these "new" ones in person or are you just going off of pictures you have seen? Pictures can have low resolution and as a result the stamps can appear fuzzy when in real life they are not.

"They would have had to remit cash or a check to pay for those stamps. If the CIA needed postage stamps. They would have issued a purchase order for the amount of stamps needed. It would have included demominations and number of stamps requested. This would have been given to the postmaster general"s office. Then the package of requested postage assembled and delivered by carrier to the CIA headquarters. Then the purchase order handed over to the controller of the treasury and funds transferred to the postal service. It would have been paid out of the allotted funds for postage for the CIA."

That does sound like normal government procedure, but such a procedure takes time and they might have needed them sooner and they undoubtedly also have a petty cash account fund to pay for things like this.

I do see the color registration difference between the original block shown and the new one. Could this be due to a small rotation when the sheet fed in?

I understand you a little lees about "One for sure indication is the gutter on left side of stamp block. This could not have happened if this block is from the same press sheet as the know genuine 1610c known. If it was the gutter would be present on those stamps as well. Which there is no gutter stamps know from that sheet of stamps. " Wasn't the original pane from the right side of the press sheet while the new one is from the left side?

" I will also note the person counting out the postage sent to an post office would have noticed this error and pulled it from sell. It passed threw to many hand to have went unnoticed before being sold over the counter to a CIA Agent. "

The same could be said about every freak and error. Things that are obvious to you as a printing professional or to us collectors are not always so obvious to postal workers, some postal workers just don't care or are happy to let a favored customer buy anything unusual with no money for themselves and yes there are others who are more than happy to save anything unusual for themselves.

I have no agenda here as I do not own one and can not afford one even if the new supply turns out to be real and lowers the price.

Eyeonwall,

What you have said is all true. I have not seen the stamp enperson. I have seen only pictures of the block.

I will say a stamp sheet of $1 denomination is $100 per sheet. That was a lot of money in 1985. So much more care would have been given in counting them to ensure two sheets was to sticked together. This is way I think a person counting out an order would had paid more attention. They see stamps all day long.so a mistake like this would have stood out. You said some employees do not care or have time to pay attention. That could be true. The person could have had a ruff day. On common everyday domestic stamps they counted them by the edge and not one at a time. When it came to high denomination stamps they were counted one at a time and separated. You have to remember they were responsible for a lot of money. Bank tellers mite account money in a stack by folding over the bill by its edges. If you notice when they count $100 dollar bills they count them one at a time. Mostly to ensure they do not stick together. These stamps were $100 dollar Bill's in value. That us why I think they would have been more careful.

But checking to make sure they only had one sheet and not two and making sure the denomination was $1 does not mean they would have noticed the flame was inverted. Its not like an inverted head.

Eyeonwall,

That is true, that is how it got out in the first place. In the back of my mind I have wild ideas why this was done. How it got threw to where it did but I guess we will never know.

I will say when an error is identified by the public sell of stamps spike. So in a way the USPS benefits with more revenue. When stamp increases are announced. The sell of postage spike. Even thou we now have forever stamps. You would think that would have no affect but is dose.

On the production of forever stamps. It was done not as a convenient to the public. It was done as a cost cutting measure. When stamps increases in price the remaining stock was destroyed. The cost of production increased and the bean counters thought a forever stamp would be more effective. I guess it was.

The self sticking stamp was not made for the convenience of the public. It was produced as the fear of lickable stamps could be tampered with causing harm to the public. Remember the USPS tried producing a 10c selfsticking stamp the SC #1552. It did not go over well with the public at the time. The rumor was a contract for the paper need for the job was a pork favor.
I guess some politicians needed to reward an patron and giving them the contract was favor retired. The stamp was not popular with the public. As you can see the adhesive used soaks threw the stamp to it face. This harming its collectablity. Also at the time it was costly to produce.

I do not know why the self sticking stamp being produced other than for public safety. The cost of production is much more than normal remostenable gummed. In the age we live in it is best to be a little more safer than sorry you did not. Plus it gave some much needed revenge to the paper mill companys. It is much harder to work with. The rolling alone was costly to make the die cut forms for the stamps. In one way it is not as they can be produced on the printing press. That eliminating the need to move to a perferations converter. They also can be cut into sheets on the press at high speed. Then moved to a cute g machine for the final cuts and packaging. Once cut in bundles of 100 stamp books. They go down a line to be shrank wrapped all straight from the paper cutter. In this way it saves money.