Acid Sensitive Ink and Color Changelings on R184-R189

Dave Thompson found a gem of an article in a short-lived publication called The Virginia Philatelist.  From the September, 1900 edition is this little piece, which apparently covers original reporting by Joseph Holmes, the editor of the New York-based Metropolitan Philatelist.  Holmes provides a contemporaneous report of a specially prepared acid-sensitive ink on R184 to R189:

More work needs to be done to find the source article from The Metropolitan Philatelist, but for now I'm fascinated by the mention of acid sensitive ink.  This report of a specially prepared ink has prompted me to look over my collection and examples of R184-R189 to find ink anomalies and to review other reference documents.  The scan below has examples from my collection showing a range of ink tones and varieties, including #6 which appears to have been the subject of an attempt at washing.  The set below appears to show that these stamps experience a color changeling phenonemon, though one that is less obvious than on the R190-R194 series due to the light color of these stamps.  The question then is whether or not these stamps were printed with a special ink, and one that might be at least partially responsible for the color differences that you see below that range from darkest to lightest, 1-6.

It may be that the acid-sensitive ink report is true, but we are certain that the overprinted numerals were all printed in black rather than multiple colors.  So there reasons to doubt the overall veracity of the report. 

Consulting Elliot Perry's. aka Christopher West's, work in Mekeel's from nearly 100 years ago, there is a report that the ink on these stamps is "far from being a permanent color", and was special in such a way that chemical treatment of the stamps would disfigure and perhaps radically alter the stamps appearance.  After 120 years, the overprints appear to be quite colorfast; the so-called gray ink is more mercurial, and it could be because of the use of an acid-sensitive ink: 

From The Revenue Stamps of the United States: The $1, $3, $5, $10, $50 and a $2 stamp in the same design were printed in a dull olive gray color in October, 1900.  The designs do not differ from the previous issues, except that each stamp is overprinted with a large outline numeral corresponding to the denomination.  The 1, 2, 3, and 5 are 20 mm. high and the 10 and 50 are 12 mm. high.  The numeral is printed in soluble black and the gray ink is also far from being a permanent color.  It was believed and hoped no chemical treatment which would remove a cancellation, could fail also to remove the overprint, or to disfigure the stamp and thereby make re-use without detection impossible.

Nevertheless, three months had hardly elapsed before the newspapers and philatelic press contained reports of extensive stamp washing and again the Bureau set to work to over come the difficulty.  In June, 1901, it was reported that the Bureau was experimenting with glycerine in the ink for the overprint on the dollar value denominations and the experiments apparently continued for several months, as not until January, 1902, were the green stamps with overprint reported on sale.  

Again, the design remained unchanged, but as the $3 denomination had been discontinued June 30, 1901, there are only five stamps of this set -- $1, $2, $5, $10, $50.  The color selected was blue-green.  Each sheet required three impressions.  First--the green ink of the stamp itself.  Second--a colorless overprint about 14 mm. square in the center of each stamp.  Third--a large black numeral on each stamp, corresponding to the denomination, part of which always falls on the colorless overprint.  The overprinted numerals measure 24 mm. tall on the $1, $2, and $5, and 19 1/2 mm. tall on the $10 and $50, and instead of being a simple outline, are filled in with a net work pattern.  These stamps were in use barely six months and seem not to have been successfully washed.  They turn blue readily and even careful soaking in pure cold water is liable to remove part of the overprint numeral.  

Perry reports the numerals on R184-R189 to have been soluble; again, as with the Holmes article regarding the nature of the numerals, this also appears to be inaccurate.  However, we may have a possible answer to the existence of the color changelings on R190-R194 that was not reported by the BEP.  Perhaps the acid-sensitive ink was applied to this set of stamps, which has made their coloring less stable over the years.  

Overall, the last set of 1898 series dollar values, the dark green R190-R194, have prominently displayed a tendency to change color.  But it is also clear, with closer inspection, that the "gray" stamps also have an issue with their color-fastness.  I would be interested if other collectors have examples of dramatic color changelings on R184-R189.

Here are a few additional examples of color issues on this series:

Stamps canceled by the NYSE firm Hopkins Brothers.  Did someone try to wash the $2 stamp on the left, or did it fade with soaking and time?  The state of the cancel on the left stamp may have faded, but the cancel on the right stamp with the darker background ink also has a weak cancel.  There is practically no image remaining of the original printing on the left stamp, while the right stamp retains much of the integrity of the original tone of the ink.  Why do these two stamps, used roughly 2 1/2 months apart, have such different appearances?

Stamps attached to a stock sale memo and canceled by the NYSE firm Herzog & Glazier.  The stamps are fading while still on the document.  I figure it highly unlikely that these stamps were washed prior to use on this sale memo, and highly likely that the stamp colors have faded with time.

Nearly bleached-out appearing R184 pair with NYSE firm Baring, Magoun cancels.

NYSE broker Dwight Braman canceled R185 still on its original sale memorandum with stamp ink that has a nearly bleached appearance.  The cancel remains strong.

Bleached out looking R185s on an Arthur S. Leland memorandum of sale.  As usual, the overprints remain dark and strong even though image in the background has nearly disappeared.  Scan sent by David Thompson.

David Thompson's example of a nearly completely bleached out copy of R185, with a perfect Albert Loeb cancel with ink that has been unaffected by the phenomenon that lightened the ink of the stamp.  The overprint also remains strong and clear.  The scan appears a bit overexposed, but it helps highlight the dramatic loss of color in this stamp.

I have numerous other ink anomaly examples from this stamp set in my collection.  There clearly is something about this ink that is different.  Is it because it is acid-sensitive, or is there another chemical explanation?

Color Changelings and Scott R190 to R194

Examples of Scott R190 showing color changeling progression. Stamp #1 is a normal stamp for reference. Stamp #s  2 & 4 are unused with original gum.

The post from October 9 explored fugitive ink on R183.  The unusual quality of that ink returned my attention to the R190 to R194 series of dollar values, which also seem to have an unusual type of ink, but unlike R183, there is no term or explanation like "fugitive" to explain this quality.  To the casual eye, these stamps were printed in green, with a black ornamental overprint corresponding to the value of the stamp.  Underlying the overprint, and not always noticed by the casual observer, is a small square of varnish (Scott notes that the varnish is on "some" stamps), added to show evidence of cancel "washing" -- the varnish is water soluble and washes off, taking with it the center of the ornamental overprint as well as any overlaying cancel.  

The green R190-R194 set of documentary dollar values is less common than the other sets as they were issued only months before the expiration of the tax period.  Production required three passes through the presses to create the final product - from original stamp impression to varnish to overprint/surcharge.

Occasionally a collector of these stamps may come across a color changeling -- a stamp in which the green has begun to change, and in some extreme cases change to a color that nearly matches the so-called "gray" color of the R184 to R189 series of stamps (the color of these stamps is a warm, sepia-like tone, not a cold gray in any way). An unused copy of R191 demonstrates this phenomenon (stamp #7 below):

The back of the stamp is marked in pencil by a previous collector as a copy of R185 with an R191 overprint.  The collection that it came from (I believe a different collector than the one that wrote the pencil note on the back of the stamp) also had a note from the collector on the side as an R185 with an error.  The color change on this stamp is extreme and seems rare according to my limited experience.  But the ink changeling phenomenon on these stamps exists, is capable of fooling relatively advanced collectors, and doesn't seem to have a clear explanation by my limited research.  More common are stamps that show lesser hints of color change, like those in examples 2-5 above.

I've never seen ink change like this on any other US issues, revenue or postage.  What is certainly unique about these stamps among US issues is the varnish square.  Richard Friedberg figures that the varnish is somehow responsible for the color changes, and it might have been, but the evidence doesn't lend itself neatly to thinking that varnish contact made the difference.  Consider stamps 3 and 4 below, where the stamps remain somewhat green closer to the varnish.  And, if the varnish was the cause of a change like that in stamp #7 below, why don't we see more of these changelings?

Another question is the timing of the color changes.  Did the changeling occur soon after printing?  I discount washing as a cause since some of the changelings I possess are unused stamps.  I've often wondered whether or not I've got slow changes happening to these stamps as they sit in my collection.  But I haven't noticed any color changes in the years that I've held some of them.  

Examples of Scott R191 showing color changeling progression. Stamp #1 is a normal stamp for reference.  Stamp #s 5 & 7 are unused with original gum.

Lastly, the $5 stamp, R192, provides an interesting opportunity to test varnish as a cause, as some of the stamps were issued without the varnish square or the overprint.

Examples of R192a, without overprint, and, apparently, without a varnish square. The left stamp is normal and provided for reference.  The right stamp is a color changeling.

The R192a on the right never had varnish applied.  Yet its color is clearly yellowing like many of the examples of R190 and R191 above.  In this case the explanation must involve the nature of the green ink itself.  The knowledge is likely long-gone from the BEP regarding the ink on these stamps.  But I suspect the right sort of chemist could help tell us what is happening.

I have a couple of non-changeling related questions, both involving how Scott lists these issues:  

• Scott refers to these overprints as surcharges, though the overprint does not revalue the stamp.  Why does Scott call these surcharges?
• In the "Warning" section below the image of R190 in the catalog, Scott tells us that the varnish was only applied to some stamps.  This needs to be unpacked a bit doesn't it?  First, most stamps appear to have the varnish, not "some".  Second, if cut cancels are sublisted for the 1898 dollar values, why isn't the presence of a clear overprint on used copies of R190-R194 sublisted?  And why isn't the presence of varnish sublisted?  I recognize that dealers and collectors don't seem to discriminate here and that is almost certainly the reason that varnish presence isn't listed.  But even without collector interest, the varnish clearly has an effect on these stamps, certainly with regard to how used, soaked stamps appear.  Used copies that have been soaked but retain the overprint are much more collectable to me, a bit like the lack of a cut cancel on these stamps.

Fugitive Ink and Scott #R183

Unused Scott R183, $3 Lake block of 4,

 with fugitive ink that's yet to go fugitive

"It wasn't me, it was the one-armed man!" said Harrison Ford's character, Dr. Richard Kimble, in the film The Fugitive.  Kimble, falsely convicted for the murder of his wife, escapes a prison bus and leads the police on a 90 minute chase scene while he works to prove it was in fact the one-armed man who did it.  R183 isn't nearly as exciting.  But the stamp was printed with something called fugitive ink.  So it does have something in common with Dr. Kimble.  R183 is uncommon, and few collectors have more than one copy if any at all in which to compare stamps and color condition.  So for many collectors, the only reason for awareness of the use of fugitive ink on this stamp comes from two entries for R183 in the recent versions of the Scott US Specialized Catalogue: 1) After the entry for the color of the stamp, which is the color lake, is the entry "fugitive ink" in parentheses;  and 2) the little note at the bottom of the entry for R183 that says, Warning: The ink on No. R183 will run in water.  There is no further elaboration or comment.  

Over the years I've managed to accumulate the unused block of four above.  I also have a few used copies off-piece with which to examine the fugitive quality of the ink.  The conditions of the used stamps exposed to water are all very different.  Prompting this post was a stamp recently sent to me by David Thompson -- it is the stamp at the bottom left in the examples below.  This stamp is clearly one that has been affected by the combination of water and fugitive ink to make the ink run, much like the stamp on the bottom on the right, which is even lighter in color.  The two bottom stamps are no longer lake in color.  

The top four stamps represent a progression in just how fugitive the ink can be.  The stamp on the upper left, with the "ATCH" cancel (a cancel for the broker William D. Hatch), appears to have never seen any water.  The second scan shows the back of all the stamps, in the same sequence as the scan showing the front of the stamps.  By looking at its back, it appears that Mr. Hatch's stamp was removed without any water -- gum remains and some of the original document is still attached.  So the stamp appears much as the block of four above.  

The top right stamp shows some fading, but its back shows what almost appear to be bloody scars of the ink that has run through the cut cancel while the lake color in front is largely retained.  The middle stamp on the right is lighter appearing on the front than the stamp above it, yet the reddishness of the cut cancel is not as great.  Oddly, the perfined stamp at the lower right has no bleeding appearance around the edge of the perfins, though the ink ran on this stamp more than any other.  And lastly, the bottom left stamp has its back stained pink from the fugitive ink, which hasn't happened on the other 4 stamps that were likely soaked at some point.  

How could soaking produce so many different results?  What is going on here?  Scott's note tells us that think ink will run in water.  But all these stamps represent very different outcomes from a soak.

Consulting Richard Friedberg, I received this answer as a possible explanation for the different conditions of these stamps:  

"if the stamp is carefully put face up in a shallow dish not much water gets to the side with the ink and it doesn't run much if at all. If the stamp remains face down for a longer period in water it will run a bit/a lot."  

So this answer could very well be the explanation I'm looking for.  But what it doesn't help explain is the opaqueness of Scott's note.  Maybe a catalog is not the place to explain how to manage a stamp like this with an unusual and idiosyncratic ink.  But the note only demands that more questions be asked, and that leaves the collector hanging.  For many, a used R183 off cover with little sign of ink fading or dispersion creates nothing but questions.  Just a brief note as to how off-cover, varyingly damaged stamps might exist would be a good idea for the catalogue for two reasons: 1) to explain what we see in the examples above; and 2) to explain how one might safely remove examples from documents in the future (don't do this please - R183s are so much better on document - unless you must).

Lastly, I have a 1971 copy of the Scott US Specialized catalogue.  There is no mention of fugitive ink or its tendency to run when in contact with water.  Maybe old-time revenue collectors just knew these kinds of things.