Foro de Filatelia Argentina

PabloS escribió:Rein, you think that it is one of the instances after retouching in the value (10), according to VK, position No. 100 of the right half of the pane (position No. 200 of the pane)?

14.jpg

Saludos. Pablo.

Pablo,

in order to explain the reproduction steps we must assume that the Evita had the same root block of 5x5 as all the earlier offset-litho stamps of that size. A characteristic already in the 5x5 would be present 8 times in a pane of 200 and 16 times in a double pane - so far we have no proof of such characteristic yet!

The block of 5x5 will get duplicated into a new block of 10x10. That block of 10x10 might contain new characteristics that after the last step of duplicating [into 2 panes of 200] occur 4 times in a double pane! This is what happened with the flaw you display- we see it twice in the top pane of 200 on positions 100 and 200; and twice in the bottom pane on posiitions 100 and 200!

If there was an attempt of retouching the effect will be different in each of the 4 cases!

The idea that we have 4 panes of 200 - which is do NOT support - would leave us with 8 different occurences of your flaw!

saludos, Rein

Rein escribió:

PabloS escribió:Rein, you think that it is one of the instances after retouching in the value (10), according to VK, position No. 100 of the right half of the pane (position No. 200 of the pane)?

14.jpg

Saludos. Pablo.

Pablo,

in order to explain the reproduction steps we must assume that the Evita had the same root block of 5x5 as all the earlier offset-litho stamps of that size. A characteristic already in the 5x5 would be present 8 times in a pane of 200 and 16 times in a double pane - so far we have no proof of such characteristic yet!

The block of 5x5 will get duplicated into a new block of 10x10. That block of 10x10 might contain new characteristics that after the last step of duplicating [into 2 panes of 200] occur 4 times in a double pane! This is what happened with the flaw you display- we see it twice in the top pane of 200 on positions 100 and 200; and twice in the bottom pane on posiitions 100 and 200!

If there was an attempt of retouching the effect will be different in each of the 4 cases!

The idea that we have 4 panes of 200 - which is do NOT support - would leave us with 8 different occurences of your flaw!

saludos, Rein

Rein, of what you say, if VK says that this flaw is presented in "position No. 100 of the right half (position No. 200)", then should be catalogued in position No. 100 of pane of 200?

Saludos. Pablo.

Rein, of what you say, if VK says that this flaw is presented in "position No. 100 of the right half (position No. 200)", then should be catalogued in position No. 100 of pane of 200?

Saludos. Pablo.

Pablo,

I do not know why Victor Kneitschel gave such strange, idiosyncratic positions! Position nr 100 of the right half should be position 200 and position nr 100 of the left half should be position 190!!!!!!! As simple a can be!!!! What was his problem????

to be continued ....

Rein escribió:

Rein, of what you say, if VK says that this flaw is presented in "position No. 100 of the right half (position No. 200)", then should be catalogued in position No. 100 of pane of 200?

Saludos. Pablo.

Pablo,

I do not know why Victor Kneitschel gave such strange, idiosyncratic positions! Position nr 100 of the right half should be position 200 and position nr 100 of the left half should be position 190!!!!!!! As simple a can be!!!! What was his problem????

to be continued ....

Do I think that I did well the question, what I wanted him to ask you is, if VK catalogued this flaw for a single position (the 200), then, according to what you say, it should also catalogued the same flaw to position 100? (if we find evidence of this)

Pablo,

not necessarily as a characteristic on position 200 of a bottom pane does NOT mean it has to be elsewhere as well! But in this case we have at least 3 (rather 4) positions!

position 190 [or 200?"as right margin torn?] top pane [purple bar below but no indent!]:



position 200 top pane [purple bar below with indent(!) and purple bar at the right]:




position 190 [because of the cross!] bottom pane [no purple bar below!]:



position 200 bottom pane [no purple bar below!]:



position 200 bottom pane [no purple bar below!]:



position 200 bottom pane [purple bar at the right]:



saludos, Rein

P.S.

All the images of no 200 of the bottom pane show a pin hole in the bottom margin where the sheets are pinned down to the perforation feeding block! Usually the crosses were meant for this!

Though not an Evita

A good instruction of how to distinguish the 2 panes!


AFRA Revista September 1956 number 110:





to be continued ....

Thank you Rein, but my question was not with the "compositions", but by what you had written:

Rein escribió:This is what happened with the flaw you display- we see it twice in the top pane of 200 on positions 100 and 200; and twice in the bottom pane on posiitions 100 and 200!

If there was an attempt of retouching the effect will be different in each of the 4 cases!

It is now clear that we find this flaw in positions 190 and 200 of the top and bottom panes.
Now in my image the position of this flaw is the 200 (purple bar at right side), although without knowing if it is the top or bottom pane:
Saludos. Pablo.

The 50c with the "E'" damaged into a "F" on position 100 or the bottom pane of 20x10:






paper from Wiggins Teape, parallel watermark with an asymmetrical paper mesh!

to be continued ...

The 10c with the damaged edge on position 200 or the bottom pane of 20x10:







See the brown line in position 199. Nobody had mentioned that one before!!!




and the blot next to the "N" in position 179:




paper from Zárate, orthogonal watermark with an asymmetrical paper mesh!


to be continued ...

The same "flaws" of another sheet!!

The 10c with the damaged edge on position 200 or the bottom pane of 20x10:







See the brown line in position 199. Nobody had mentioned that one before!!!




and the blot next to the "N" in position 179:




paper from Zárate, orthogonal watermark with an asymmetrical paper mesh!


to be continued ...

Here I show the variety on the "0" of value, corresponding to position N°190. These same blocks we can see also, but in position N°171 a special feature on the last olive leaf of the stamp.

PabloS escribió:Here I show the variety on the "0" of value, corresponding to position N°190. These same blocks we can see also, but in position N°171 a special feature on the last olive leaf of the stamp.

17ing.jpg

Great find Pablo!

Do you have the brown scratch through "Eva" as well???

Rein escribió:Great find Pablo!

Do you have the brown scratch through "Eva" as well???

Unfortunately I don't have that position, only a few blocks from this value.

Saludos. Pablo.

The 1952 10c Evita:








It seems that all S.O. stamps printed in 2-colour offset-litho in the 1952-1969 period have the S.O. in black printed first!


What can occur is that the ink does not always stick well enough on the black underground! So that only part of the other colour will be visible!

to be continued ....

The 1952 20c Evita:








It seems that all S.O. stamps printed in 2-colour offset-litho in the 1952-1969 period have the S.O. in black printed first!


What can occur is that the ink does not always stick well enough on the black underground! So that only part of the other colour will be visible!

to be continued ....