Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, a series of colourful side-face issues were printed. In this post I will be referring to the 1956 issue of the 3½d red.
There were three types of paper used for the 3½d red, (1) normal paper, (2) hard transparent paper and (3), the hard thinner transparent paper; the third being rare.
Showing is a block of 4 3½d stamps printed on transparent paper and a pane of 6 printed on thinner transparent paper.
Paper thickness for the side-face definitive is - thin paper 0.085mm and less; normal paper 0.105mm, transparent paper 0.095mm, and the thinner transparent paper shown is .090mm.
There are currently only 2 known of the thinner hard transparent booklet pane of 6; I know where the other pane is and will soon acquire it.
It is wise to have any "thin" paper printings of QEII professionally tested to see what type of transparency is used, the type of transparency can be a $100+ difference.
"Thin" hard transparent paper
"Thinner" hard transparent paper
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Maybe I should messure my QEII side-face issues? But I think they all are used. That means no gum withc I think will influence the thickness? If so, did they all get the same amount og gum?
I have a tool that messure down to 0,001mm ( I work as a tool clerck in a factory) so messurment are not a problem.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Tobben63
The absence of gum will definitely affect the gauging of thickness; all stamps of the pre-decimal series had the same gum thickness, only the thickness of paper would have made a difference.
Normally all the watermark and non-watermark papers had the same thickness. The normal paper thickness for the side face QEII stamps were 0.105mm and the transparent paper 0.095mm which I believe is a difference in thickness of 0.01mm.
Measure your used stamp against the measurement of an unused stamp of the same type and you will be able to know the absence of thickness. For a thin paper it should show much less than the normal gauge of thin paper such as 0.095mm anything lower than that in thin paper.
Also thin transparent paper in the QEII side face is prominent when seen from the back, as well as the paper being a little stiffer than the normal paper used for the definitive.
Make sure the tool you are referring to will not damage the stamp as a micrometer is recommended.
The booklet pane of 6 of thinner translucent paper is very rare, shown above, only one separated booklet is currently known to exist, I have one and the other will soon be with it's twin.
I will be very interested if any are found on cover.
Rob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Member ACCC (Australian Commonwealth Collectors Club of NSW)
26 Jun 2019
06:35:55am
If you find this post confusing – it is.
In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, a series of colourful side-face issues were printed. In this post I will be referring to the 1956 issue of the 3½d red.
There were three types of paper used for the 3½d red, (1) normal paper, (2) hard transparent paper and (3), the hard thinner transparent paper; the third being rare.
Showing is a block of 4 3½d stamps printed on transparent paper and a pane of 6 printed on thinner transparent paper.
Paper thickness for the side-face definitive is - thin paper 0.085mm and less; normal paper 0.105mm, transparent paper 0.095mm, and the thinner transparent paper shown is .090mm.
There are currently only 2 known of the thinner hard transparent booklet pane of 6; I know where the other pane is and will soon acquire it.
It is wise to have any "thin" paper printings of QEII professionally tested to see what type of transparency is used, the type of transparency can be a $100+ difference.
"Thin" hard transparent paper
"Thinner" hard transparent paper
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Transparent Paper
Maybe I should messure my QEII side-face issues? But I think they all are used. That means no gum withc I think will influence the thickness? If so, did they all get the same amount og gum?
I have a tool that messure down to 0,001mm ( I work as a tool clerck in a factory) so messurment are not a problem.
Login to Like
this post
Member ACCC (Australian Commonwealth Collectors Club of NSW)
27 Jun 2019
05:01:40am
re: Transparent Paper
Hi Tobben63
The absence of gum will definitely affect the gauging of thickness; all stamps of the pre-decimal series had the same gum thickness, only the thickness of paper would have made a difference.
Normally all the watermark and non-watermark papers had the same thickness. The normal paper thickness for the side face QEII stamps were 0.105mm and the transparent paper 0.095mm which I believe is a difference in thickness of 0.01mm.
Measure your used stamp against the measurement of an unused stamp of the same type and you will be able to know the absence of thickness. For a thin paper it should show much less than the normal gauge of thin paper such as 0.095mm anything lower than that in thin paper.
Also thin transparent paper in the QEII side face is prominent when seen from the back, as well as the paper being a little stiffer than the normal paper used for the definitive.
Make sure the tool you are referring to will not damage the stamp as a micrometer is recommended.
The booklet pane of 6 of thinner translucent paper is very rare, shown above, only one separated booklet is currently known to exist, I have one and the other will soon be with it's twin.
I will be very interested if any are found on cover.
Rob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.