Philatelic Expertizing and R192A

Current Ebay listing for a copy of R192A without gum.  Stamp is accompanied by an expertization certificate.

Over the years this site has featured copies of R192A in addition to the range of R190-R194s in various states of color and varnish conditions.  A current posting on ebay for a copy of R192A with an expertization certificate by William T. Crowe raises questions about how experts understand these stamps and how they were printed.

The stamp above appears to be a normal copy of R192A.  There is no numeral overprint, and no sign of varnish, as is typical on these stamps.  An owner of the stamp acquired a recent certificate in November, 2022:

"****It is Genuine, Unused and without gum.  While the Ornamental Surcharge is partially water soluable and could have dissolved when the gum was removed, there was no evidence under my UV lamp of there having been an Ornamental surcharge on this stamp.*****"

Mr. Crowe describes the overprinted version of the stamp as having an "ornamental surcharge that is partially water soluble".  This description is inaccurate, in a significant way.  The ornamental numerals are not soluble in water, partially or otherwise.  The varnish square, which is unmentioned on the certificate, is what is soluable.  The cert needs to say that there is no evidence of a varnish square or the numeral ever having been added to the stamp, which is consistent with the typical copies of this stamp.  At this time there are nearly a dozen R192As on ebay, and none appear to show varnish or the overprint.  The Scott catalogue does not mention that the varnish square is also absent on R192A, which is an oversight, as it speaks to how this error involved sheets of the stamp missing both the varnish pass and the overprint pass through the printing process.  The varnish squares never were made large enough to make the entire numeral wash off with water.  

The last of set of 1898 series dollar revenues are the most complex of the 1898 revenue stamps, requiring three passes to print the main image, apply the varnish, and apply the overprint.  Experts accustomed to certifying "normally" printed stamps probably need to spend a little extra time understanding these unusual stamps.

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.

Augustus Heinze' United Copper Company and the Panic of 1907

UNITED COPPER CO.

MAY

2?

1902

NEW YORK.

Langlois scan

The United Copper Company was incorporated in late April, 1902.  The above stamp from May 1902 was likely used on documents regarding the incorporation of this new firm.  As you can see from the New York Times story fragment below, the incorporation of this new company was no small affair; the consolidation of the participating mining companies into United Copper required $80 million in 1902, over $2 billion in 2012 dollars.

New York Times, April 29, 1902

Augustus Heinze was a "copper king" in Butte, Montana, who arrived a bit late to the scene in 1889 but still managed to build a major mining enterprise and compete with the established "kings".  After years of building his companies and mines, he left Butte for the east coast to dabble with the fortune and companies he had created.

Augustus Heinze in 1910

In 1907, Heinze moved to New York.  United Copper was based at 42 Broadway, just around the corner from Wall Street.  Heinze entered the banking business, forming a close alliance with Charles W. Morse.  With Morse, he served on the boards of several national banks, state banks, trust companies and insurance companies.

Across the corridor from Heinze and Morse were his brothers, Otto and Arthur P Heinze, who had a brokerage firm. With the experienced Morse, Otto conceived an ill-fated attempt to corner United Mining stock in October 1907.  Otto, however decided to go forward with the cornering attempt without the capital that Morse thought was necessary to insure success.  The result was that the corner dramatically failed, and its failure was the critical catalyst in a major US financial system collapse.

Scene in front of the New York Stock Exchange in October 1907 during the financial panic.

Otto Heinze had miscalculated.  He overestimated how much United Copper that Augustus and the family controlled. When he required short sellers to buy back stock, there was more than enough United Copper stock available in the open market for the "shorts" to cover their short sales.   When the collective market realized that Otto's maneuver had failed, the price of United Copper stock collapsed.  Then panic spread as people pulled money out of banks associated with Heinze, and then from trust companies associated with those banks.  Augustus Heinze had supported his brother's cornering attemp.  Augustus' deep commitments across the financial system led to great personal losses. He would be barred from further involvement in financial institutions.

The Panic of 1907 was one of the most significant financial crises in American history.  Contributing factors included the costs of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, yet it was the actions of the Heinze brothers that had caused much of the panic.  J. Pierpont Morgan, the premier financier of the day, was able to stabilize the financial markets through his own manipulation.  However, the US Government was not to leave the markets open to the solutions of private capital much longer.  The 1907 crash directly lead to the formation of the US Federal Reserve System in 1913.

New York Stock Brokers: George P. Butler & Brother

G. P. BUTLER & BRO.

MAY  6-  1901

NEW YORK.

Dave Thompson scan

George P. Butler and Brother was opened in 1898 by George P. Butler and his brother Arthur W. Butler.  According to the New York Times the firm traded for Gould interests, at least on one occasion in 1903 in the stock of the Wabash Railroad.

New York Stock Brokers: Clark, Dodge & Company

C.D.&CO.

JUN

18

1902

NEW YORK

Langlois scan

Louis Crawford Clark, member New York Stock Exchange

1897 photo available from King's Views of the New York Stock Exchange

2011 September screen capture from Clark Dodge Asset Management web site.

Clark Dodge is still in business today.

R192A $5 Commerce Documentary: No Numeral and No Varnish

R192a $5 Green Documentary

Dave Thompson sent in this scan of an R192, MNH, with no surcharged numeral.  The Scott catalog lists the stamp with a separate value for the missing surchage.  It does not mention, though, the missing varnish, which the stamp does not appear to have as well.

The granularity of Scott listings among the revenues and the 1898s has always left something to be desired. In this case, the catalog does not distinguish by value or by numbering the presence or lack of varnish.

Varnish

It's an interesting challenge to try to illustrate the square of varnish on R194 and its siblings, but here's a go at it.

The varnish square is roughly 15 mm on a side, and can be seen easily when holding the stamp at an angle to the light. On the one below, it shows up (at least on my monitor) as a yellowish tint on the stamp.

Although I didn't manage to make the outline quite square, here is where to look for it on the copy above.

Whither Varnish?

Several days ago, in this post, I wrote about the varnish square said by Scott to have been placed on some of the green commerce dollar revenues.  I asked if anyone has ever tested the stamps with UV or some other kind of light to see if the varnish shows up.  Dave Thompson did a bit of experimenting at home:

Nothing to report on trying to detect evidence of Varnish Square on the Commerce Dollar Revenue Stamps, also no results found there was evidence that a varish square had existed.

But I only had used stamps to test on, perhaps some of your super rich guys have Mint Never Hinged single, blocks or sheets laying around of say the R194 you could check these out for the rest of us.

• I tried Short and Long Wave UV light.
• Strong light at sharp angles front and back of each stamp.
• Even tried watermarking them front and back.  (They all had sideways watermarks)

*****

Now while Dave might have an issue with not having sheets of mint copies of R194 to test with his highly sophisticated lamps, he did run the stamps he had under the light and found nothing.  So soaking must have removed any trace of varnish from his stamps, with no residue remaining.  This seems strange to me.  Anybody have a few mint stamps to test?

Varnish and the Green Commerce Dollar Values

Just before the listings in the Scott Catalogue for R190 to R194, the green commerce dollar values, the editors provide this marginally scrutable statement:

Warning:  If Nos. R190-R194 are soaked, the center part of the surcharged numeral may wash off.  Before the surcharging, a square of soluble varnish was applied to the middle of some stamps.

Unfortunately, there is nothing else written about this little varnish square and when it was applied over the lifetime of the issue, which was very short.  These stamps were issued in 1902, and their use was discontinued after June 30, 1902 with the expiration of the Act that authorized the taxes.  But delve into any dealers stock or private collection of these issues and you will no doubt find a mix of stamps that have either a complete numeral or a partial numeral affected by soaking due to the varnish. 

While Scott provides a warning about the potential effect of soaking, the warning does not translate into distinct value listings for stamps with either undamaged or damaged surcharged numerals.  Given that these are some of the scarcest of the regularly issued 1898 stamps, it would seem sensible if dealers, collectors and Scott valued stamps with the damaged numerals less than the stamps with complete numerals.  In general this is not the case.  Specifically in Scott, and more generally on Ebay and other popular online sites.

Left stamp with undamaged numeral

Right stamp with the center of the numeral missing

Close-up of numeral damaged from soaking

Left stamp with undamaged numeral

Right stamp with the center of the numeral missing

Close-up of numeral damaged from soaking

I have yet to find any research or further explanation of this varnish square in the literature, but would like to know if there has been any work done on these stamps.  All of the copies that I have of these stamps are off document and I would be interested to know if unsoaked varnish squares show in normal light or under a UV lamp.