Home Stamps Forum

problem with ce 1

why are some mnhog ce1's a bit over 0.75 mm wider than other like mnhog ce1's? I have 2 that are big, and it's a mystery. Moisture content? Shrinkage? Height is consistant with others, even compared with ce2 also.( ce 2 are always shorter I find)
So shrinkage of design would mean the official master die design size of 1 44/100 as struck to be slightly smaller after being printed and dried. It should in no case show a stamp measuring out greater than the design size print, (1.44 inches = 36.54 mm. ) Mine measure at 36.75 and the usual ce1's at 36.0 mm.
ok, everybody measures different. maybe mine are 36.54 in the sake of argument. perhaps earlier printings are wet print , later dry printed? paper is or appears the same white color, if anything the larger stamps have a blue tinge more like a wet print, turning some of the print method argument in question. Look at the entire theory and comment back.use an known example in the 20 th century flat press type if possible. other examples? like questions?


  • I don't have a clue what you're talking about. That's how stumped I am.

    I understand what you are describing, but have never gone into that type of detail in examining my stamps.

    Something tells me when I'm stumped I don't even realize.
  • coverscovers Posts: 624
    BB - I suggest that you purchase a copy of Max Johl's "United States Postage Stamps 1902 - 1935" which includes those stamps. Four different plates were used, no size difference.
    Richard Frajola
  • glad you bit this one. all true. now... how and why? if plates # 21312,13,14,15 are the only ones used and all employed on flat bed press, then the question remains- of the 9,215,250 printed why the disparity?
    I believe all stamps shrink a bit post impression, stands to reason with the high moisture content required in the BEP's process, so for my edification at least, I need to find an example demonstrating otherwise. I know the 'great ones' who spent a lot of time plating speak of shrinking, and recently an individual was allowed access to plate the perf 11 rotary harding, my understanding created a impression and I wonder what he found. BEP retained and destroyed it of course.
    I am just a amatuer, but if the following facts of the BEP are true-
    four plates, prepared no retouching identified
    all "wet" printing
    no paper change ( none identified, and thus infered, not proven)
    includes type of 1934, aka farley.
    Would you look at yours? or anyone else to take a moment and check would be so appreciated. Always interested in learning, so dish it out. respectfully yours, and thanks
  • LouisCampLouisCamp Posts: 468 ✭✭✭
    Weren't wet printings where the paper is wet for the printing process? I would be surprised, after drying, that every stamp would be the same size. I'm sure at the time there were differences in the amount of moisture in the paper.

    ANA Life-Member
  • absolutely. This can be seen throughout the wet prints, which ended with 1063 if I recall correctly. The question remains can one have one as large or slightly larger than the master die? Star plates were employed as one approach to shrinkage and the loss it caused the bep, so this is a recurrent issue. Paper tends to shrink at the edges a bit more than the center, causing wrinkles and perf seperation . Perhaps the prints closer to the center retain a more dimensionally stable trait and the outer stamps shrink more! Platers, what is your impression of this thought? Can one infer thus that no stamp wet printed can equal the master die dimensions? I think that's a good thought, and if you will re-examine your own material this will show itself. I often think that some of the proof like stamps benefit from the shrinkage. I know when checking W/F flat plates prints I can see moderate differences, perhaps related to position and die transfer . Many rotary vary even more. Thanks for your thoughts.
  • I have a complete set of CE1 sheets (four plate numbers and four positions) that I put together over a period of 20 years. Is there anything in particular that I can inspect/measure to assist with your investigation?
  • In the 1873 issues, paper shrinkage was a problem. The paper used in the late 1870s had some extreme shrinkage. One aspect of the shrinkage was extreme shrinkage in one direction that would cause the design to expand in the other direction. If you had extreme shrinkage in the vertical direction, you could expect the horizontal measurement to be at or wider than the die. The same applied for extreme horizontal shrinkage, the vertical measurement would be larger. This was not consistent but common enough to be noted by Ron Burns. Ron Burns does believe that the outside stamps produced the most shrinkage.

    If you want to confirm that paper shrinkage is the problem, match the perfs up to a stamp with normal measurements. If the perfs line up very close to the same, then paper shrinkage during the printing process is likely the blame for the variation in measurements.
  • thanks. simply measure them and check the width. Since your stamps are plate block positions they will/should measure consistent ( and short of design size). Refer to the figures previous, do yours measure more than design, less or just what. Are they consistent? One reason I ask goes to the heart of philatelic certification, if shrinkage is an issue, how does one base perfing as a basis for authentication on tough W/F issues? Have we not all seen issues not subject to fraud perf oddly? 12 or 12.5? I have modern issues with some odd perf spacings as if machinery fell off calibration also. 11 or 11.2 or 10.9 ? Would a mnh and used stamp ( now we muck it up with more water in a completely uncontrolled widely variable manner) be dissimilar if shrinkage is real? Is gauging on used issues just averaging then?I truly believe that shrinkage is the problem in the ce1's and like to wonder what if.

    As another has written here on this subject, it is difficult to believe that shrinking in one direction stretches the other direction 90 degrees to the shrink. Have you seen this? Not that he's wrong, but i have a physics issue. materials often contract unevenly, and expand likewise but expansion and contraction are responses to different forces. Thanks for your effort and much fun on my part.
  • Shrinkage is usually related to the mesh (or grain) of the paper. Some very good articles have been written about paper mesh.

    MNH versus used. The addition of gum will help keep the shrinkage to a minimum. Use the stamp, place it in water to soak off the cover and you can have shrinkage. You can also use some chemicals to shrink the paper. Used stamps that have shrinkage from water or chemicals will almost certainly have perfs that do not measure properly.

    Your stamps are MNH. If the perf measurements are correct, then I would lean toward pre-gumming shrinkage.
Sign In or Register to comment.