Thursday, 9 November 2017
Underprints Vs Overprints
I often get into arguments (or should I call them heated discussions) with other collectors, take this debate for an instance.
Many catalogues and dealers refer the discount backing printing on certain stamps as under prints but actually they are overprinted on the layer of gum. I feel to save confusion and separate these issues from overprints we should call them gum overprints. But this would entail all current catalogues and dealers lists to be re-printed.
Due to the amount of work involved I can not for the life of me see that this would happen. But just for the record I will still persist to call them gum overprints.
One person wrote to me suggesting these were very rare. I reminded him "If you collect used stamps these overprints get washed away with the gum during soaking, so yes they may be rare to collectors of used stamps." for clarity as mint stamps they are affordable and widely available.
Now to my second argument. I will take the 17p value gum overprinted double lined star with a wallpaper pattern to get the point across. These stamps (this stamp) can be sourced from booklets Pillar Box and the Pond life series 1 and 2.
If we look at the image above it clearly shows two different versions of the same stamp (there are others), admittedly they are only different from the gum side but they ARE quite different so should they not be catalogued as different stamps?
left over paper stocks of the single star type were also used for the printing of the 12p values in sheet form, these appeared as a multiple star laid out on the whole sheet. Several versions of the overprint occur on the stamps akin to a multiple watermark. Again these are quite different when one compares them. Different stamps?
Lets get the party (argument) started and have your views.