Op Sun, 25 May 2008 10:48:02 +0200 schreef Dominique Stéphan
<news+2006@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
Dominique,
the changes in stamp paper do have a technical explanation AND need -
there is/was a need for whiter than white stamps just as there was a need
for coated paper, etc...
You may distinguish a technical need from a technical explanation.
Phosphor ****fts may have a technical explanation but there was no
technical need for it.
A stronger type of paper to be used for coil stamps was a technical need
at that time when otherwise coils would have been torn apart. A different
technical solution was to slightly change the perforation as they did in
the Netherlands and Australia.
It's obvious that we have to choose what direction our specialisation is
going to be - you may prefer phosphor ****fts, I prefer changes of paper
whether dictated by postal mechanisation or changes of fa****on.
The OBA's are a very much neglected field in philately and I think those
who have access to the base material ought to organise a thorough
research. In the Netherlands I did do that some 30 years ago, I wonder
whether in France someone might have undertaken that chore...
groetjes, Rein
> Rein,
>
> I bother when there is a technical need/explanation.
>
> For instance, coils are usually printed
> (for typographic stamps) on a thicker paper.
>
> I have in mind a sample of very interresting small
> phosphorescent ****fts : it on a coil stamp
> (Sabine, green 1 bar), there is a small right ****fts, enought
> to see a small part of another bar that shouldn't
> be there. That is, unless it's a mixt print
> (5 greens et 5 reds, greens have 1 bar, red 2 bars).
>
> So, I was explaining why I didn't think it was interresting
> *for me*, as well as the *best* way to do this study.
>
> Rein a écrit:
>> Dominique,
>> Why bother at all? About small ****fts of phosphorescent bars? How do
>> you know they are just small variations if you havent' studied them
>> properly? Or may be you do have and while using all the coin-datés you
>> might have found out that there is a system in it. Also in a
>> chronological sense...
>> Philatelists may be a weird race, but some at least try hard to be
>> original...
>> groetjes, Rein
>> Op Fri, 23 May 2008 21:01:05 +0200 schreef Dominique Stéphan
>> <news+2006@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I always find interesting other "point de vue" about French
>>> collection than French collectors :-)
>>>
>>> The real question is : why bother ?
>>>
>>> There is basically 2 types of papers :
>>> - those what were a voluntary modification (aka the Coq by Decaris
>>> fluorescent).
>>> - those what are variation from the paper supplier.
>>>
>>> Unless the variation is quite evident (for instance, Chalky
>>> Paper on Liberty French by Delacroix stamps, although it was
>>> likely a test for commemorative stamps), small variations
>>> aren't so im****tant.
>>>
>>> I do have experience with soaked stamp (not so much) that
>>> appears more fluorescent than the on paper stamps. So this
>>> kind of study is more done with mint stamps, especially
>>> "coins datés" (I think it's somewhat a French specialty,
>>> definitive stamps don't have a plate number, although
>>> it can sometimes be determined by margin marks, but
>>> they do have a print date).
>>>
>>> Modern French stamps require a non fluorescent paper, so
>>> that overprinted phosphorescent bars are more easily seen by
>>> the machines (and because fluorescent, whiter than white paper,
>>> is the standard, so falsifications can be recognized from true
stamps).
>
>
>
--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
|
