home

GREECE: FIRST TYPE.

THE CLEANING OF THE PLATES

By Theodore Groom, M.A., D.Sc.,

(This article was transcribed by Louis Basel from the original which appeared in the Philatelic Journal of Great Britain, November, 1930, p. 229 et seq. It is another of Theodore Groom’s excellent articles on the classification of the Large Hermes Heads stamps of Greece. Please note that Groom uses the term "crust-flaws" for "ink spots" that appeared on the large Hermes head stamps due to dried ink that accumulated on the un-cleaned plates; and the term "unit" for "position on the sheet" of present terminology.)

Every col1ector of Greek stamps will be familiar with the division of the Athens prints of 1862-75 into two groups, one printed before and the other after the plates were cleaned. Messrs. Beckton and Duerst¹ recognized a single cleaning before the issue of the stamps of 1870, a view still reflected in Messrs. Stanley Gibbons’ catalogue. Later students have adopted somewhat divergent views.

Mr. P. L. Pemberton² held that in addition to the cleaning for the stamps of 1870, both earlier and later cleanings took place. He considered³ that all the plates were cleaned in 1867 (“First Cleaned Plates”), and again a year or two later (“Second Cleaned Plates”), and that fresh cleanings took place for the printing of the stamps of 1875-76 (5, 10, 20 and 40 lepta, Nos. 99, 102, 107 and 109-110 respec­tively of Messrs. Stanley Gibbons).

Nicolaides⁴ and M. Brunel⁵ regarded the plates as cleaned in 1869. M. Paul de Smeth⁶ maintained that the plates were often cleaned, in fact practically for every new printing, though he placed the chief cleaning in 1867. Dr. H. Munk⁷ would not place the first thorough cleaning of the plates before the first half of 1868. He maintains and stresses the occurrence of repeated thorough cleanings of all the plates in the following two decades.

The discrepancies between these various views appear to be due to several causes; partly to divergent ideas as to the charac­teristics of prints made from the cleaned plates, and partly to differences in identifica­tion and classification of the stamps.

¹ The Stamps of Greece, 1897.
² Philatelic Journal of Great Britain, 1911, p. 147.
³ Catalogue of the Stamps of Greece, 1923, pp. 4 and 6-8.
⁴ Historie de la Création du Timbre Grec, 1923, p. 34.
⁵ Philotelia, 1927, pp. 87-88.
⁶ Grèce, Premier Type, pp. 16, 35, 36, 38, 44, 45.
⁷ Kohl’s Briefmarken handbuch, 11th Edition, Greece, p. 168.

After careful consideration the writer has come to the conclusion that the essential feature of a “dirty” Greek plate is the abundance of small specks of dried ink⁸, and that the only noteworthy result of cleaning was the removal of a number of these. As recently pointed out⁹, if, after use, the plate is not properly cleaned, the ink left forms a hard crust difficult to re­move. Subsequent cleaning leaves small fragments of this, and these, being in relief, print out as spots or small blotches of the same color as the design of the stamp. These “crust-flaws” or “specks” appeared and dis­appeared at various times, and their disap­pearance with cleaning can be followed in detail.

It will, I think, be granted that a slight cleaning, such as that at the end of a day's printing, will be likely to remove only a limited number of specks, while special and intensive cleaning may result in the simultaneous dis­appearance of many. Thus, it is to be expected that there will be a tendency, on the one hand, to the gradual disappearance of specks at frequent intervals, and on the other to the simultaneous loss of a number at definite periods. Examination of the units of the 20 Lepta soon showed that both of these pro­cesses had been at work; and, since the re­sults are particularly well exemplified in this value, it will be convenient to deal with it first.

⁸The blotchty appearance produced at various times from First Athens prints onwards by heavy printing must be carefully distinguished from that due to ink-crust.
⁹London Philatelist, 1920, p. 110.

(a) Encrustation and cleaning.

The plate, clean at first, stage by stage became encrusted, and, in spite of some losses by minor cleanings, acquired its maximum number of specks at the time of printing of H (S.G. 41a) in 1867¹⁰. Up to that time, the customary cleanings had failed to keep pace with the increase in the number of specks. But after the maximum was reached, more attention was bestowed on the plate, and, in spite of occasional additions, the number of specks diminished progressively during the time the plate was in use. This will be apparent from the accompanying table, in which the average number of specks per unit for different groups is given¹¹. It will be seen that during the period considered, this average number increased from less than 2 to a maximum of about 33, and dropped again to about 2. It may be noted incidentally that the progression observable is in agreement with the order in which the groups have been placed by the present writer¹².

In tracing the loss during cleaning it would have been desirable to commence with H; but since my collection of stamps of this sub­-group is not complete, and since the loss during the printing of H appears to have been scarcely more than one per cent, it will be convenient to consider the successive losses, in terms of Ja (bright blue), the second sub-group of HJ.

The maximum number of specks for the whole plate at the time of printing Ja was about 4857. The table shows in percentages of this total to the nearest whole number the losses noted during the printing of later groups¹³, and those noted during the intervals between them.

¹⁰ The maximum in individual units occurred not infrequently in G or Ja, but most commonly in H.
¹¹The average numbers of specks on the plate are greater than those given. The most sporadic flaws have usually been neglected, since for the purpose of the present communication they are often unreliable.
¹²Philotelia, 1924-26, and P.J.G.B., 1927, pp. 19-22.
¹³Only 137 and 112 units have been available for calculating the maxima and minima respectively for Jb; 110 and 145 for Jc; and 138 for the maximum in b-d. In the remaining groups, it has been possible to take into consideration all the units.

¹⁴ In Athens prints earlier than C this is a mere fraction, and in Paris prints no specks have hitherto been noted.

It will be seen that 67 per cent, or two­-thirds of the specks of Ja were lost before the printing of Jc; that the main losses occurred during the printing of Ja and Jb, especially the latter, and in the interval between the two; and that during and after Jc the specks disappeared very slowly, there being a loss vary­ing from nil to 3 per cent in each group or interval.

(b) The special cleaning during the printing of Ja.

During the printing of Ja the specks in the copies available show a decrease in number from nil to 68 per cent according to the unit, with an average loss of 17 per cent. In most of the units no indication has been detected of the simultaneous disappearance at any considerable number, the successive losses being small and scattered in time. But in twenty units the later copies show the sudden disappearance of from 15 to 52 per cent, with an average loss of 30 per cent. Details are shown in the following table. In this the number of copies is shown in brackets. The loss given is in terms of the maximum seen in Ja. In cases of doubt between two possible numbers the average is taken. In the column of earlier copies, and sometimes in that of the later copies, maximum and minimum numbers are shown. These in each column are usually connected by intermediate numbers (omitted from the table), which mark minor cleanings.

The relative numbers of copies before and after this cleaning, 101 and 35 respectively, in the twenty units, suggest that the cleaning took place about three-quarters of the way through the printing of Ja. But, if the seven units represented by less than six copies each, be neglected as less likely to give true aver­ages, the time of cleaning would be nearly four-fifths of the way through. The earliest dated copy I have from the cleaned plate is October 1867, the year of appearance or Ja, which may, therefore, be given as that of cleaning.

(c) Cleaning in preparation for the printing of Jb (1868).

In more than half the units available (137) the loss observed between Ja and Jb is very slight or nil. In the rest it varies from a small percentage up to more than 50, and brings up the total loss during this interval to15 per cent, an amount suggesting a special cleaning of the plate. This per­centage, however, is the maximum possible since any alterations due to additional copies must increase the loss during Ja or Jb or both. It may well happen that in some of the units in which there is at present a big hiatus between Ja and Jb, fresh copies of the one or other may appreciably reduce the loss in the unit concerned.

Whether the cleaning took place immediately after the printing of Ja or just before that of Jb, or on both occasions, appears to be immaterial. The first use of the plate after cleaning was in preparation for the printing of Jb in 1868.

(d) Cleaning during the issue of Jb.

The most effective cleaning of the plate took place during the printing of Jb. It involved a loss of some 27 per cent of the specks of Ja. The losses seen in individual units range from nil to 79 per cent As in Ja, the disappearance of specks in many units was gradual, and out of the total loss nearly one-half is afforded by 46 units. These show a sudden drop in the percentage early in the issue, a drop respon­sible for a loss of 9½ per cent, or a little more than one-third of the total for the plate. Particulars are shown in the accompanying table (p. 6).

A comparison of the numbers of copies printed before and after the cleaning, 69 and 258 respectively, suggests that the cleaning took place after the printing of between one­-fifth and one-fourth of the sheets of Jb. If those units which are represented altogether by less than six copies each are neglected as less reliable, the fraction becomes one-fifth.

Most of my dated copies that show this cleaning were posted in the year 1869, though one doubtfully falling under this category bears the date Dec. 1868. The year of clean­ing, however, is definitely fixed in another way. It has been shown on a former occa­sion¹⁵ that Jb was printed during the interval between Ga and Gb of the 10 Lepta, both of which appeared in 1868. The cleaning during Jb therefore took place in this year, perhaps in its latter half.

Particular effects of this cleaning can be gathered from the analyses and figures of units 39, 66 and 109 already published¹⁶.

¹⁵ Philotelia, 1926, p. 34.
¹⁶ London Philatelist, 1929, pp. 149-151.

(e) Cleaning subsequent to the printing of Jb.

A further loss of 8 per cent in prepara­tion for the printing of Jc (1869) is shown in the table (pp. 2-3). This appears to indicate the last special effort made on the plate, and even this relatively small loss may be reduced by future finds.

In the two years that had elapsed since the maximum in Ja cleaning in stamps belonging to two groups had reduced the percentage of specks to 33. In subsequent operations up to the end of the printing of the carmine stamps, which covered a period of thirteen years, and saw the printing of not less than fifteen groups of the 20 Lepta, the total loss was about 24 ­per cent; at no individual stage was it more than 3 per cent, and in most cases 2 or 1 per cent, or a fraction. It is, therefore, hardly possible to maintain the occurrence of any special cleanings, such as have been supposed during this period. The losses would appear to be due rather to the customary cleanings of the plate after use. The light appearance of many of the stamps after Jb must be attributed to light and careful printing; and the heavy prints of early or late issues chiefly to over-inking.

(a) General

The only value other than the 20 Lepta in which the cleaning has been sufficiently investigated is the 10 Lepta.

As in the case of the 20 Lepta, the plate, at first clean, soon acquired crust-flaws, which, very generally, after attaining a maximum, showed a progressive diminution in numbers. The specks, however, were much less abund­ant than in the 20 Lepta. The maximum occurred sometimes in F, Gb or H, and in some units persisted until disuse of the plate, or exceptionally occurred towards the end of the issue. But in the great majority of the units it is seen in Ga, and the average maximum for the whole plate is found in this group. The averages for the plate are shown in the accompanying table¹⁷ (p. 10). In this, for the purpose of ascertaining the effect of cleaning, any specks arising after Ga are neglected. The percentages are those of the maximum on the whole plate at the time of printing Ga. This is estimated at 1,440.

In this table the rise of the specks to a maximum and their diminution afterwards are clearly seen. It may be incidentally remarked that the numbers given for groups C-Ga agree closely with the estimates pub­lished earlier¹⁸, which were based on appreciably smaller numbers of units.

A glance at the percentages given will show that the loss during the printing of any one of the groups Ga-N, O varied from nil to 1 per cent¹⁹, and that the apparent loss in the interval between the printing of any two consecutive groups after H-J scarcely exceeded 3½ per cent The losses last mentioned, moreover, must be maximum losses, which, with additions to the number of copies ex­amined, will tend to appear smaller. The groups from H onwards thus afford no evidence of extensive cleanings comparable with those of the 20 Lepta.

The only cleanings of importance were two of about the same order as that between Jb and Jc of the 20 Lepta; one between Ga and Gb, which resulted in a loss of 9 per cent of the specks of Ga, chiefly from the S.E. quarter of the sheet; and a less important one between Gb and H, which involved a loss of about 6 per cent The effects of the first cleaning in the case of units 107, 127 and 128 can be inferred from the analyses and figures which have recently appeared in the London Philatelist 1929, 148 and, plate). Since both Ga and Gb appeared in 1868, this year is presumably also that of the chief cleaning of the plate, the year also of the chief cleaning of the 20 Lepta²⁰.

The date of the second cleaning cannot be fixed exactly, but the most rational time would be immediately after the completion of the printing of Gb, that is, in 1868 or 1869.

The relatively small number of specks on the plate and the small amount of cleaning are presumably connected with the less frequent use of the plate, which never became so much encrusted as the plate of the 20 Lepta at its cleanest after about 1864.

¹⁷ The average for 75 units of Group A is 0.08.
¹⁸ P.J.G.B., 1927, p. 185.
¹⁹The loss during the printing of H-J amounted to rather over 2 per cent, but it must be remembered that H-J is an assemblage of probably not less than five groups.
²⁰Should at any time impressions of Ga of the 10 Lepta or Jb of the 20 Lepta be proved to have taken place in 1867 the date of the main cleanings of the plates for these may have to be shifted to this year. At present there is no evidence for this.

(b) Comparison with the 20 Lepta.

Reference to the accompanying figures 22-26, and to the tables on page 136, will show that in many respects the history of the plate was similar to that of the 20 Lepta. This is seen in the rise in the number of specks to a maximum, and their subsequent diminution to a minimum, in the tendency to neglect the margins, and in the gradati­on on either side of a middle horizontal belt. A slight cleaning before the printing of Ga, involving the loss of less than 2½ per cent of the specks of F, appears to be indicated by 20 units. These belong to three vertical rows on either side of the fourth and eighth rows. This distribution seems to indicate the mode of cleaning and its partial character. But the most marked cleaning took place in 1868, the year of that of the 20 Lepta.

The main differences are:

  1. The general maximum occurred later, namely in 1868 (Ga), for the 10 Lepta.

  2. The excess of specks on the right marginal row of the 20 Lepta was replaced in the 10 Lepta by an excess in the left marginal row.

  3. There were only two special cleanings, neither very important, namely that of 1868, between the printing of Ga and Gb, and a less marked one between Gb and H, in which more than half the loss occurred in eleven marginal or sub-marginal units.

  4. A number of the specks found on the frame-edges, spandrel-edges, sides of the squares, or on the circle persisted until a late date. This is illustrated by the figures and analyses already published²¹ of units 107, 127 and 128.

Since no marked cleaning of the plate of the 10 Lepta took place during 1867, I am obliged to reject the view that all the plates were specially cleaned in that year. Mr. Pemberton’s inclusion²² of the red-orange on greenish (S.G. 35, E of the present writer) in his “First Cleaned Plate” series, was natural so long as it was believed that its printing followed that of the red-orange on blue (S.G. 37, E of the present writer), for on this view there would be a drop of 50 in the percentage of specks. But, as shown previously²³, the plate at the time of the printing of E was cleaner because the date was earlier.

Mr. P. L. Pemberton²⁴ regards the pale orange on greenish paper (G) of the 10 Lepta as having been printed from one of several “second cleaned plates.” This conclusion also can hardly be accepted. I have shown²⁵ that Mr. Pemberton’s printing G really con­sists of two groups, one, Ga, printed in the interval between Ja and Jb of the 20 Lepta, and a second, Gb, printed between Jb and Jc, both appearing in 1868. Ga then, preceded Jb, which Mr. Pemberton gives as numbers 63 and 64 under the heading of the “First Cleaned Plates.” Ga, as shown above, was printed from the un-cleaned plate. On the other hand, Gb, like Jc of the 20 Lepta, which succeeded it, was printed from the plate after the chief cleaning. For the same reason it is impossible to accept Dr. Munk’s grouping of the whole of G (Ga and Gb) under the cleaned plate series²⁶.,

²¹ London Philatelist, 1929, p. 148.
²² Catalogue of the Stamps of Greece, 1923, p. 6.
²³ P.J.G.B., 1927, pp. 185-90.
²⁴ Catalogue of the Stamps of Greece, 1923, p. 7.
²⁵ Philotelia, 1926, pp. 33 and 34.
²⁶ Kohl’s Briefmarken handbuch, 11th Edition, pp. 167 and 173.

(c) The blotch on the cheek.

The distribution of the wing-shaped blotch on the check in its perfect or imperfect form, and that of its not infrequent companion on the side of the neck²⁷, is very similar to that of the ordinary crust-flaws. They have been observed on nearly fifty different units of the 10 Lepta, in which they range chiefly from Group A to Group H.

Whatever the group, the blotches are nearly always limited to marginal or sub-marginal stamps, chiefly those of the first three and last four horizontal rows of the sheet. About 85 per cent of the units involved belong to these rows. The rest are found with few exceptions on the left and right marginal rows, chiefly the former. A very large pro­portion of the blotches are found on units which in the group concerned have more specks than the average for the sheet. A large oval central area of the sheet is almost entirely devoid of such blotches (Fig. 21).

The similarity thus indicated in the distri­bution of these blotches and the ordinary specks can hardly be explained except on the view that the cause was the same in both cases, namely, the method of cleaning. It must be concluded that in both cases we are dealing with crust-flaws²⁸.

The greater rarity of these blotches in certain values²⁹ is difficult to account for. Possibly differences in the composition of the ink may be a contributory cause, certain kinds of ink-crust being, perhaps, more easily formed or removed than others.

²⁷ London Philatelist, 1929, p. 1113 et seq.
²⁸ See Ibid. for other reasons for this conclusion.
²⁹ Ibid., p. 113.

³⁰ These groups are those of Mr. Pemberton (P.J.G.B., 1911, p.130, et seq.), with modifications proposed by the present writer (P.J.G.B., 1927, pp. 185-90).
³¹ The number of units considered is in all cases in excess of the number available. This is due to the inclusion of groups, certain units of which have not been seen, but in which the number of specks could be determined approximately or accurately by interpolation. It has been considered that the number thus attributed would probably be nearer the truth than an average taken from the remaining units.

go to top       home