How to describe a watermark!

[Rein]

Pablo, una consulta:
Este maperial que compraste ¿te vino así o vos preparaste las hojas que mostrás?

A quien preguntaba por la posición de las filigranas, supongo que el dibujo es tal como se ven del lado de la viñeta, es decir, de frente. Si bien se observa mejor del lado de la goma, a la hora de clasificarla o de dibujar la posición se debe hacer considerando la vista del frente de la estampilla.

Saludos.
Fredy

Fredy,

you always judge the watermark and describe it from the back of the stamp! At least philatelists ought to do so! People checking whether a security paper is real watch the watermark from the front!

But how do you know whether the printers [Casa de Moneda] did use the right side of the paper to print on???? They are supposed to print the felt side of the paper [the side that was in touch with the dandy-roll that produced the watermark] but rarely did they in fact use the felt side for printing!

That is also the misunderstanding about filigrana traspuesta! It is usually the papel traspuesto we are dealing with, the paper of which the felt side got gummed or the wire side got coated!

In Argentina, "filigrana traspuesta" only implies that the back side of the stamp displays RA instead of AЯ and nothing more, it reveals nothing about whether the felt side had been used for printing or not!

[Rein]

... Respecto a lo de las filigranas, sostengo mi posición.
No coincido para nada con lo que dicen Rein y Alejandro.
Es una cuestión de lógica, además de lo que se ha dicho a través del tiempo.
Los sellos se "ven" de frente. ...Fredy

Fredy, sin entrar en la polémica si está bien una manera u otra, respeto lo que indicás, pero yo me acostumbré a 'ver' las filigranas desde el dorso. Y si me piden que les dibuje la filigrana de un sello en pos. 3, por ej., naturalmente lo hago con las patas para arriba y la R a la izquierda con su panza hacia adentro y la A a la derecha.
Saludos
Alejandro

Difficult not to get into a polemcial discussion! Fredy doesn't agree with either Rein or Alejandro!

to be continued ...

[Rein]

Alejandro, Pablo, Héctor, Amigos:
Yo no quiero polemizar sobre la modalidad de interpretar la posición de la filigrana. Simplemente hice mi aporte para que luego no tengan problemas, porque cuando lean un catálogo o notas de anteriores estudiosos (Bose , VK, etc.) se van a topar con esa situación y pueden equivocarse. No podemos unificar criteriors cuando la pólvora ya fue inventada; yo no inventé nada, la cosa viene así desde siempre. De todas maneras somo libres de hacerlo que quieran.

Hasta siempre.
Fredy

Fredy,

Kneitschel [1958] does not say a thing about how to look at the watermarks! Not in his Explications! Only when you see the illustration that goes with the Multiple Sun + AЯ watermark you are bound to get misled!!!

to be continued ....

[stamps9407]

Hello All, let's see what actual catalogues uses

Stanley Gibbons says

Illustrations in the Catalogue are of watermarks in normal position (from the front of the stamps) and are actual size where possible

But it also says

...However, since philatelists customarily detect watermarks by looking at the back of the stamp the watermark diagram also makes clear what is actually seen.

I'm not good reading french but in Yvert & Tellier watermark diagrams are as seen from the front of the stamps.

Scott doesn't looks to have any standard (at least for argentinian stamps) I am reading the 2009 version and for Wmk. 84 is as seen from the back meanwhile Wmk. 90 or 288 are as seen from the front.

In my opinion it shall be followed the Stanley Gibbons concept, it is important, ie: to stay very clearly at the very beginning what nomenclature are you going to follow

Bye

[Rein]

Hello All, let's see what actual catalogues uses

Stanley Gibbons says

Illustrations in the Catalogue are of watermarks in normal position (from the front of the stamps) and are actual size where possible

But it also says

...However, since philatelists customarily detect watermarks by looking at the back of the stamp the watermark diagram also makes clear what is actually seen.

I'm not good reading french but in Yvert & Tellier watermark diagrams are as seen from the front of the stamps.

Scott doesn't looks to have any standard (at least for argentinian stamps) I am reading the 2009 version and for Wmk. 84 is as seen from the back meanwhile Wmk. 90 or 288 are as seen from the front.

In my opinion it shall be followed the Stanley Gibbons concept, it is important, ie: to stay very clearly at the very beginning what nomenclature are you going to follow

Bye

I agree with you that it should be made clear from what position you are describing the watermark! And the catalogues are not clear about it!

Although the idea of a watermark - in general to detect a falsified security paper - may have been to look at it from the front, it now should - at least for philatelists - to provide us with the best possible way of detecting the shape and size of the watermark and that is from the back of the stamp. We are interested not just in the very fact of a possible fake now - I do not think the collectors have ever been! - but in how the watermark looks like and how it is positioned in relationship to the stamp design. And that is what Postal Administrations could not be bothered about!

So, to me the only sensible way is to judge a watermark from the back of the stamp where we have the least obstacles to describe it! If someone feels like doing it the other way, be my guest!