Parentage of types

A structuring chapter to understand the constant differences of impression

The materials of the punches and galvano type

The properties of elastic and mechanical resistance go in this order : Brass > Bronze > Copper deposit (stannous or not) >>> Lead. (Although Brass and Bronze can be reversed depending on the alloy)

We can therefore say that the original punch of the engraver is at least as resistant (probably more) than the service and galvanos-type punches.

Typography and electroplating

In typography, the successive reproductions of the original punch are made by electroplating which is a process of electrodeposition of copper on lead imprints in the case of many stamps and in particular the Peace type.

The elimination of the lead from the duplicate to reveal the replica of the engraving is carried out without damage. The integrity of the copper under the lead is preserved!

An important truism: (Without retouching) the engraver and/or the copy cannot create additional relief compared to an original punch. It is this raised part that will appear in the ink color of the stamp.

The hypotheses

The copper elements by electroplating (Poinçon, Galvano-Type: GT, and Galvano de Service: GS) are lightly cleaned with an abrasive eraser which in no way alters the reproduction of the engraving. Besides, why would the service hallmark be damaged by abrasion and not the GT and/or the GS with several identical imprints in almost all cases... (For the 50c Peace Type I, two sheets of 100 in my possession attest to this. )

I therefore twist my neck at the idea that the sanding of the copper deposit could generate “Types” even if it means creating a controversy. (See Colonel Leblanc Study)

How to explain the constant differences when printing (Types) with service punches from the same original punch: retouching by the engraver who eliminates parts in relief. What else ?

The chain of production generating different aspects is widely debated, but again this is very unlikely given the constant differences between the different types.

Possible motivations of the engraver:

Improve the rendering of the lead counter-type, but then what about the quality of the imprint of the galvanos-type which a priori does not pose this kind of problem? Unlikely !
Focus on perfection after removing lead from the service punch to ensure quality galvano-type
To compensate for involuntary damage due to a shock or any other hazard.

Paix type II | Philatélie | Timbre retouché

Type I left vs Type IIA right

Type IIB left vs Type IIA right

Type III

Workshop proof vs Type IV on the right

Exhaustive comparison between the different impressions

Hypothesis of filiation of the different types 50c Peace

Conclusions

None of us are really fully informed about the practices in force at the Boulevard Brune printing works from 1932 to 1937. Everything that is said is very often speculated! I don't know anything, I deduce by factual analysis!

Type I of sheet = Type I of notebook = Type I of the collective test with different but same constant Impressions (Cf Genesis and Many Types)

Type IIB of Rotary Printed Roulette = Type IIB of Flat Printed Letter Cards with Different but Same Constant Impressions (Cf Many Types)

Type III of sheet = Type III of notebook with different Setups for example, same constants (Cf Many Types)

Notebook Type IV = Workshop Proof = Artist Proof = Presentation Proof: without comment ! (Cf Genesis and Many Types)

Consistent types: Type I and III on the same sheet (Galvano CE for example). Strong argument, because here again there is a consistency on the galvanos concerned. (Cf Many Types)

Types standing: Type I and Type IIA (Isolated from type IIA, on squares 35 and 36 BS of cylinder BS+BT or unidentified galvano). Another extraordinary and constant “avatar” of the 50c Peace. (Cf Many Types)

Type IIA notebook with an isolated Type I in space 1 or 19 at Disconcerting! (Cf Many Types)

Nine printing presses for the sheets, no difference by issue period: what about makereadies? Statistics and probability plead for different types.

Over seven years, constant intangible differences, types I, IIA, IIB, III and IV: what about inks, inkings for example?

And finally the hallmarks kept at the Postal Museum which reveal their secrets. One can easily extrapolate (speculate) on the creation of the secondary punches to the different types. (Cf Genesis)

My intimate conviction abounds in the direction of hallmarks of service to the different types (listed in the wrong order in the catalogs), with voluntary actions of the engraver. I think I provided a lot of elements!

The variations of aspects on the typographic chain should not be neglected; they can generate differences… But I am skeptical about the vagaries of variability over the long term… But my honesty forces me to doubt! I may have overlooked some important points… Nothing is set in stone! I voluntarily amalgamate different printing modes, because the punch of a type once engraved generates the same rendering. These are not "fly's feet" (or cosmetic defects), but long-identified constants that need to be put back in the right order!