Production flaws

Double perforation

A chapter of its own are copies where the perforating tool passed through one and the same gap twice. Depending on how far apart the two strikes fell, the result looks entirely different: with a small offset the holes overlap and the teeth are left ragged, with a larger one two clearly separated rows appear with a band of paper between them. Both forms are recorded in the collection.

Specimen 1 — two closely offset strikes

On this copy the second strike caught both vertical sides, and only a fraction of the gauge separates it from the first. The rows are therefore out of register by a little: the holes partly overlap and the teeth left between them are narrow and ragged. Along the side, teeth of normal width alternate with conspicuously thin ones and the depth of the cuts varies; in the enlarged detail one can see pairs of closely adjacent holes separated by nothing but a thin strip of paper.

Specimen 2 — two separate rows along the bottom

The copy is identified as field 100 of the third printing plate — the bottom right corner of the sheet, that is, the last row. Here the bottom side was punched by two separate rows of holes one above the other, offset by less than one hole spacing, so that they did not interleave but lie side by side as two parallels. The stamp was separated along the lower of them — that one has the ordinary toothed profile — while the upper row stayed whole: it lies untouched in the margin as a continuous line of round holes, because nothing was torn along it. That is what makes the copy valuable. An unbroken row of holes inside the margin can arise from nothing but a second pass of the tool, so the flaw evidences itself — unlike ragged teeth, which can be mistaken for careless separation.

How the flaw arose

The essence is the same on both specimens: one and the same gutter received two strikes. This can happen with either of the tools used on the issue, but each gets there by a different route — and the two specimens on this page show precisely those two routes.

• A line perforator punches one straight row of holes across the whole sheet; the sheet is then advanced by the size of one stamp and the tool strikes again. A whole sheet is thus built from dozens of separate strikes and the accuracy rests on the operator. If the sheet slipped, was laid in a second time, or the operator lost track of which gutter had already been punched, that gutter receives an extra strike — and since the vertical and horizontal rows were done in separate passes, it can be any of them. This fits specimen 1: both vertical sides are doubled and the offset is so small that the holes overlap.
• A comb perforator punches three sides of a whole row of stamps in one stroke, after which the sheet advances by one row. If that advance fails — the sheet moves too little, or slips — the horizontal part of the comb lands in a gutter the previous stroke has already punched. A doubled horizontal row results, while the vertical sides stay sound, because those are made by the vertical prongs of the comb. That is exactly what specimen 2 shows: two rows one above the other along the bottom, and the vertical sides untouched. Its place in the sheet fits as well. The specimen comes from the last row, and the bottom edge of the last row is closed by a separate final stroke of the comb — the one gutter a stroke merely closes instead of opening the next row at the same time. A repeat of that particular stroke therefore shows exactly where it is seen.

The direction of the doubling therefore hints in itself at which tool was at work. A doubled vertical side points to line perforation; a doubled horizontal row with the vertical sides untouched matches a failure of the advance under a comb. On specimen 2 the gauge confirms it: it is coarser than on specimen 1 and matches comb perforation B. Identifying the copy as field 100 of plate III settles it — the comb struck twice there, with a very small offset.

A double perforation is not a catalogue perforation of its own. Groups A–H describe the kind of tool and the gauge, that is, what the sheet was punched with — a repeated pass of the same tool does not change the gauge, and the stamp is identified from the row that corresponds to the proper pass. It is recorded as a perforation deviation: sought after by collectors, but outside the catalogue arrangement. It is easy to tell apart from the exceptional perforations I and L — there each side carries a single row of holes, merely at a different gauge from the opposite side, whereas in a double perforation one and the same side carries two rows.

Missing perforation

The opposite of a double strike is a pass that never happened at all. An unbroken band of paper is then left between two rows of stamps and the sheet cannot be torn there. The stamps had to be separated with scissors or by tearing, so the finished copy has one or more sides that are smooth, without teeth — and the remaining sides perforated as usual.

Specimen 1 — horizontal perforation missing

Both horizontal perforations are missing: the top and the bottom side were separated with scissors, while the vertical sides are perforated normally. That the cut ran between two stamps is betrayed by the bottom edge — a piece of the neighbouring stamp's frame is still visible on it. Two consecutive horizontal rows were therefore skipped, which with a line perforator means the sheet passed through without a strike twice in a row.

Specimen 2 — vertical perforation missing

Here a single vertical row is missing — the left side. The top, bottom and right sides are perforated. The wide smooth margin on the left carries faint traces of red ink from the neighbouring stamp, so here too the cut ran through the open gutter between two stamps. That makes the copy self-evidencing: had the margin merely been trimmed, paper would be missing from it, not left over.

Specimen 3 — top perforation missing

The third copy is the most telling of the three. The top horizontal row is missing; the left, right and bottom sides are perforated. The wide top margin retains the frame and part of the lettering of the neighbouring stamp — the cut therefore did not run down the middle of the gutter but reached into the design of the stamp above. Such a margin is at the same time the best proof of genuineness: extra paper carrying someone else's print cannot be obtained by trimming teeth away, only by the perforation genuinely having been absent there.

Beware of confusion. The issue also appeared imperforate, and there all four sides are smooth — with a missing perforation at least one side must remain perforated. The flaw can also be faked by trimming the teeth away, so the width of the margin is judged on every copy: a trimmed edge is narrower than normal and traces of the holes tend to remain. For the more valuable combinations (perforation missing on several sides) a certificate is in order.

Partly doubled print

On these stamps the design is divided into two parts by a straight horizontal boundary. Above it the impression is clean and sharp, below it heavier, smeared and in places doubled — the outlines repeat, displaced by a fraction of a millimetre. The boundary is ruler-straight, has nothing to do with the design and continues into the side margins of the stamp. On all four recorded copies it lies at roughly the same height.

How the flaw arose

The cause lies under the sheet, not in the printing plate. During printing a foreign object found its way beneath the sheet — most likely another piece of paper: an underlay, a spoiled sheet, or a folded corner of the sheet itself. Its straight edge lifted part of the printing surface, and from that moment the sheet was printed at two different heights.

• The raised part met the forme sooner and under greater pressure than the press was set for.
• Under that excess pressure the paper shifted slightly on the forme and the impression smeared or doubled — which is why the outlines repeat only a fraction of a millimetre apart.
• The rest of the sheet lay at the normal height and printed cleanly.
• The transition between the two is therefore as straight as the edge of the sheet that caused the lift. It follows the foreign object, not the design — which is exactly why it runs on regardless of what is printed beneath it.
• That this was a one-off situation at the press is supported by the boundary lying at the same height on all four copies: it fits stamps from one row of the sheet, the row the edge of the underlying paper crossed.

Why this is not a cracked plate

Copies of this kind turn up in offers as a “cracked printing plate”. That is a mistake, and the two are easy to tell apart:

• A crack adds ink. Ink collects in the fissure, so it prints as an extra line. Here nothing has been added — the design is the same on both sides of the boundary, only the quality of the impression differs.
• A crack is constant. It belongs to one stamp field, recurs on every further sheet and grows over time, so it can be divided into stages. A smeared area recurs nowhere — it arose in one particular pass of the press.
• A crack belongs to the plate, this boundary to the paper. The division crosses design and margin alike and takes no notice of what lies beneath it; a crack, by contrast, always sits at a particular place in the design.

What real damage to a plate looks like — a coloured line, tied to a stamp field and staged over time — is shown in the Damage to the printing plate part, which includes the crack at 11/II.

Specimens from the collection

Creased paper

The Hradčany stamps were printed on dampened paper. A damp sheet is soft and ripples easily, and if it did not enter the press perfectly taut it gathered under pressure and a crease was left where it folded. Printing then took place over a wrinkled surface: no ink reached the fold itself, and once the sheet was flattened out the design was pulled apart. The finished stamp therefore shows a light unprinted line whose two sides do not meet — the design is interrupted and displaced there.

Why creasing happens

• The paper was dampened before printing so that it would take the ink better. A damp sheet loses its stiffness, ripples and gathers far more readily than a dry one.
• Sheets were laid into the press by hand. It was enough for one not to lie flat, or for an edge to tuck under, and the crease was there before the forme came down.
• The issue was produced in 1919 in haste and on makeshift equipment — the same reason why the other production flaws are common on the Hradčany stamps too.
• After printing the sheet dried and shrank. The crease was fixed by that and stayed in the paper even after the sheet was divided into single stamps.

Degrees of creasing

• Rippling — the paper is merely undulating, the design stays continuous and only waves slightly. The least conspicuous state.
• Crease — a thin light unprinted line crosses the design; the two sides of the design are displaced only slightly.
• Fold — the paper was laid over on itself. The unprinted band is wide, the design plainly fails to meet and the stamp looks distorted. The most telling degree and the one collectors seek.

Telling a production flaw from later damage. What decides is whether the design continues across the crease. If the crease arose before printing, ink is missing in it and the design does not meet on either side — that is a production flaw. If the paper was crumpled after printing, the design runs smoothly across the fold and only the paper is bent; that is damage, and it lowers the value instead. On multiples the evidence is strongest: a crease that passes from one stamp to the next across the gutter must have been in the sheet at the time of printing.

Specimens from the collection

Twenty-five stamps on twenty-three items — twenty-one singles, one imperforate horizontal pair (item 1) and one vertical pair (item 23). Click a specimen to enlarge it.

Splinters and specks — a foreign object in the paper

A foreign object found its way into the paper while it was being made — a fragment of wood, a piece of bark, or an unpulped fibre that survived the beating. Collectors have two names for it according to its shape: an elongated sliver is a dřívko (splinter), a small compact particle a smítko (speck). The object stayed pressed into the thickness of the sheet, and the stamp carries it to this day.

The mark of identification is that it is visible from both sides. Dirt that settled on the stamp later lies on the surface of one side. A splinter is enclosed within the paper, and so shows on the face and on the back alike — at the same place, merely mirrored.

How the flaw arose

The object entered the paper at the paper mill, long before printing — it has nothing to do with the printing forme and does not recur at the same stamp position. The issue was printed on whatever paper could be had in 1919; quality varied, and checking the raw material was not among the things that mattered most at the time. Objects in the paper are therefore fairly frequent on this issue.

Because the object was already there when the sheet was printed, the printing reacts to it. The surface is not level there and takes ink differently, so the ink does not transfer as it should: a pale halo without print tends to surround the particle, or the design is interrupted. On the back a lightened ring is sometimes visible around it — the fibres parted about the object and the paper is thinner there.

Telling it from later dirt. What decides is whether the object is in the paper or on it. An embedded particle is visible from both sides, cannot be scraped off, and the print around it is disturbed — the ink never reached it. Dirt stuck on afterwards lies on one side only, the design continues unbroken beneath it, and in raking light it stands above the surface. A larger splinter also weakens the paper: the sheet is thinner there and tears more easily, so such a copy deserves careful handling.

Specimens from the collection

For each item the face is on the left and the back of the same stamp on the right. Click a specimen to enlarge it.