 |
||
 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Return to Page 1.
Milne: A member is also challenged by two further things, first, understanding the text of the Handbook. By way of example, he points to page D-158 and the 19p stamp. Under the “flame” color he notes that 15 different stamp numbers are listed ...which prompts him to ask: “Is it really possible to identify all 15 of them without having some sort of chemical lab at your disposal?”... And his second poser, asked with the same apparent mix of mirth and frustration, is: “Though I am impressed with the Handbook, can I ever fully understand all its ramifications? ... Especially since, though I am now retired, my wife does find other things for me to occupy my time, like mowing the lawn, painting, and paying attention to her!!!!”
Myall: All you need to identify all 15 level 3/3a entries for DG 190.2 is a 10X glass and a short-wave ultraviolet lamp. You do not even need a graticule in your magnifier, since there are no value setting variations for this stamp. However, I strongly recommend getting such a magnifier since value settings are probably the most important criterion for identification. (This pioneering work has given me the most satisfaction from my studies.) Even with these, however, the .2mm minimum was set so that they could be distinguished by the naked eye.
Milne: The most difficult problem for one member is in differentiating between fluorescent coated paper (FCP) and advanced coated paper (ACP) although he uses both wave types of UV lamp. “What is the best way,” he asks, “to detect positively such papers?”
Myall: The best way to distinguish FCP from ACP is with a short-wave UV lamp. The former has no phosphor in the coating so any afterglow (when the lamp is switched off) will be limited to any bar or bars that may be present. ACP, on the other hand, will glow all over. Be sure to irradiate the stamp sufficiently, at least 10 seconds.
Milne: In a similar vein, another member has read and re-read your explanations on paper and has tried to put together examples of different types of paper without success. As a suggestion, he asks: “Would it be possible to put together a simple (?!) matrix or chart that would help explain the differences?”
Myall: The difficulty of positively identifying paper and gum combinations for single stamps has been recognized in the suggestion in Appendix 4 of the Handbook that this be left to last as more easily applied Deegam criteria will often make it unnecessary. The attempt to put together a reference set of papers is the right approach and one I have adopted myself. There are many examples of a stamp existing in only one or the other form, which could be selected for the purpose of comparison with an unknown stamp. I go even further in some cases and use the stubs from panes from prestige books. Many of these have large unprinted areas such as, for example, those in the Agatha Christie book. Incidentally, the member’s problem might be solved by these panes, since two are on FCP/PVAl and two are on ACP/PVAl and he knows for certain which are which. Remember that different coatings are required for gravure and lithographic printing, so include samples of each.
Milne: Is there is a difference, to your knowledge, between longwave UV lamps in North America to those in the U.K.? A member is, apparently, having trouble in seeing afterglow from longwave and doesn’t know whether it’s there or not ... or whether the problem is just his advancing years!
Myall: I don’t think there can be such a difference since the required emission is scientifically specified, unless the manufacturer is not up to snuff. It is particularly difficult to make small UV lamps with emission in the short-wave range since ordinary glass will block it (hence the use of a microscope slide to convert a short-wave lamp into a temporary long-wave one). The glass of the lamp has to be of a special kind that will allow the short waves to pass through. It is also necessary to illuminate the stamp for a sufficient time to allow enough energy to be absorbed for re-emission in the visible spectrum.
 |
| These images are taken of the values from two 3p ultramarine Machins. The value on the left is screened; the one on the right is not. Screening results from one of the production steps in photogravure being carried out improperly. In his Handbook, Myall lists fully screened values and notes that they are popular with collectors. Screening is also found in the border of the stamps and in the margin. Screening does not occur in Machins produced by lithography or the electromechanical engraving method used for nearly all Machins produced since 1997. |
Milne: What level of screening qualifies a stamp as screened? You have enunciated a policy (at page L3-75 in the Second Edition of the Handbook) — but it does leave a judgment call ... And you are the Supreme Court! A member seeks help with calibration.
Myall: In order to reduce the subjective factor as much as possible, I list only those stamps whose values are fully screened, as in the illustration on page L3-75. Of course you can include others in your collection and attention could be drawn to them as showing that the phenomenon is not uniform. A particularly interesting example of undoubtedly the same stamp existing in two states was mentioned on page 10/98 of Deegam Report #24. Although only one of them would make it into the Handbook, the pair makes an interesting subject for comment in a collection. Do not regard the Handbook as the alpha and omega of Machin collecting!
Milne: Two similar stamps on level 2 are separated only by phosphor screen count. Have you ever thought of making this a Level 3 parameter?
Myall: Yes, when drafting the second edition of the Handbook, I did consider treating all 250 screen stamps as level 3 on the ground that the use of this cross-ruled glass screen for the manufacture of phosphor cylinders (as distinct from the color cylinders) was probably a mistake. (The pre-decimal mixed screen cylinder was undoubtedly an error.) However, I shrank from making the Catalogue number changes that would have been involved.
Milne: Could you, in a future Deegam, offer simple help in how to differentiate gums?
Myall: Yes, I will try and give additional help in identifying gums. The Handbook already contains information that will enable you to identify gum arabic with just a magnifying glass. Dextrin gum is noticeably stiffer than is polyvinyl alcohol (PVAl). If you hold a dex stamp by one corner and bend the opposite corner (gently!), it will spring back much more positively than will PVAl. The use of a colored die by some manufacturers and not others is also a help, once you have become familiar with their appearance. Maybe examples should be added to your reference collection. Perhaps some entrepreneurial dealer could be persuaded to compile such collections and market them?
Milne: A member articulates the thoughts of many as he writes: “Mr. Myall is undoubtedly the ‘Master of the Machins.’ On a scale of 1 to 10, his Machin Handbook is a 12. If he were ever to add prices to the Handbook it would be a 20!!! No one,” he adds, “would ever have to go to another, inferior, source for this important information. Will this ever be a possibility?” Another member echoes the same desire for price references as indicators of scarcity levels and also suggests a cross-referencing “somehow” with the SG Specialized numbers. He wonders, Douglas, if this could be achieved?
Myall: I floated the possibility of including prices when I was planning the second edition of the Handbook; but the majority was against it, and I went along with this view because of the amount of work involved. It might be possible one day to produce a separate list consisting of nothing but DG level 3/3a numbers and typical prices. But what precisely would be its value? I am not a dealer and I do not sell stamps, so such a list would be additional to those produced by dealers. Nevertheless, it is something I will keep in mind for the third edition. Meanwhile do not neglect the lists produced by the dealers who advertise in the Handbook. One even promises to use DG numbers in his...although he hasn’t got round to it yet! It is not only writers who suffer from lack of time! Cross-referencing with SG Specialized numbers will not be possible as long as SG prohibits the use of their copyrights for such purposes.
Milne: Plate flaws can help in the proper attribution of a stamp; but such information does not appear in the Handbook. Do you plan to include them in the next edition?
Myall: The inclusion of printing flaws would double the size of the Handbook. When I was Editor of the GB Decimal Stamp Book Study Circle, I devised and printed plating charts for all booklet cylinders then in use, and these may be obtained by joining the Circle. The advent of the electro-mechanically enhanced (EME) method of cylinder making means that such flaws will not occur in the future.
Milne: In the last couple of questions, mention has been made of the third edition of the Handbook. Is this planned, and, if so, when can it be expected?
Myall: There are no plans at present to issue such a third edition. (Note: A third paper edition was indeed published in 2003.) When it comes, it will most likely be an electronic version, running in parallel with the second, paper, version. The likely layout and function of such an edition was predicated in Deegam Report #11. The second edition will be maintained by means of Supplements, issued after each major tariff change. The announced changes for April will trigger the first Supplement. This will be sent to the printer after I have seen the N. Ireland Regionals due on June 8, 1999. (The Scotland and Wales stamps will not be Machins.) Depending on the printer, publication is not likely to be before September. An announcement will be made in a Deegam Report when it is ready. The present draft of the Supplement is as far advanced as it can be and is currently being checked. It revises, updates and augments about two-thirds of the existing pages and there are an additional 120 pages (60 sheets). I have checked, and it will fit into the present binder. I am also planning to make available an additional binder with a smaller capacity as an option. This is intended to be used for temporary storage, e.g. to hold pages for study. It can also be used to hold Deegam Reports. The covers will have see-through pockets into which can be inserted your own title pages.
Milne: A relative beginner, asks (and I’ll paraphrase, since similar questions have come from others): “How about offering up the three levels separately so that a beginner doesn’t have to buy the whole thing and be intimidated/turned off by the intricacies of Level 3?”
Myall: I sympathize with this request and even announced my intention of doing it in Deegam Report #10. There were to be two volumes, one covering levels 1 and 2, and the other level 3. They were to be separately bound and priced. In the event, it proved logistically too difficult, being impossible to gauge how many of each version, with and without binders, to have printed. Another possibility was to put the articles and the lists into separate volumes; but, again, there were practical difficulties. I could try and find a publisher who would take such problems off my hands but I do not want to do this. By typesetting and publishing it myself, I retain, through my computerized systems, complete control over layout and content. More importantly, perhaps, I can update it daily and be ready to go to print whenever I like. It also gives me the ability to produce timely Deegam Reports in the handbook style.
Milne: Is there a simple way to differentiate between the Harrison, Walsall and Enschedé printings? “If so, what is it?” a member begs...because failure to achieve this differentiation is driving her insane!
Myall: I think this question is aimed at the current gravure production from these firms, although Enschedé’s stamps are, as yet, not very numerous. To them must now be added Questa, and the loss of the “jawline mark,” which appeared on their lithographed stamps, is a serious one for us. The changes imposed by Royal Mail in the 1996 contracts were aimed at securing a uniform product and have made individual identification more difficult. Although this is not impossible, there is no “simple” way to do it. Your best chance is to understand and apply the criteria advocated in the Handbook. One of the more important for the purpose posed is the direction of printing (DOP), fortunately still detectable from EME cylinders. This is aided by the placing of the swarf deposited by the APS perforators used by all four firms. In general, Harrison and Walsall have opposite DOPs; exceptions will be noted in the Supplement. Questa’s gravure stamps have the same DOP as Harrison/De La Rue but are either different values or have a different perforation gauge. Harrison/De La Rue stamps will not have the new A2 phosphor, the only firm not to do so. I will keep an eye on this problem and include as much information as I can in Reports, etc.
Milne: Where does the 60p that was in the low value pack originate? Were they torn from booklets, torn from booklet sheets or were special sheets printed?
Myall: Presentation packs historically used to be made up by outworkers who were normally supplied with sheets of stamps for the purpose. However, I have recently discovered that the use of outworkers to assemble these ceased some time ago. The whole process is now automated, including bursting the stamps from sheets and inserting them into the packs. The 60p was available only from booklet panes of four and I understand that uncut sheets of these were supplied for the packs. Normally, this would result in the pack stamp being TTTT and the booklet stamp either CTTT from position 1, CCTT from position 2, TTCT from position 3 and TCCT from position 4 — see figure 17 on page L3-23 of the Handbook. However, the panes were printed by Walsall and at that time their bookmaking methods burst them from the uncut sheets. Accordingly, all the booklet stamps are TTTT, although some of the burst edges appear less frayed than the normal torn ones. The packs were first on sale on 29 November 1995 and, so far as I know, the stamps in them are the yellow fluor 2-bar type. If anyone has seen the inset bar or the blue fluor type in packs, I would like to know of it.
Milne: A member specializes in the collecting of se-tenant pairs and wonders: “What is the future of this catalog?”
Myall: I hope to issue a new edition of the “Se-tenant Catalogue” next year but it depends on finding the time. Deegam Reports carry updates from time to time and another will be included soon.
Milne: How do you prepare your illustrations for the Handbook and the Deegam Reports. For example, what type of camera or scanner do you employ? If it is a scanner, what scanner software do you use? What dpi settings? Is it then transferred to a graphics software program? If so, which? What half-tone screen is best? Conversely, if you use a camera/microscope, what techniques do you employ?
Myall: Scans are made with a Hewlett Packard color Scanjet 4C. I use the “millions of colors” setting, even if the image is to be printed in black and white as I believe that this gives a better rendition (more information in the bitmap file). The resultant files are very large but I use off-line storage media, currently Syquest EZ135 disks and formerly Iomega Bernoullis.
I presently have a Gateway 2000 PS-166 computer running under Windows 95. After the Supplement is safely printed, I will be upgrading and the new set-up will probably include Sony or Iomega gigabyte or larger removable disks. The software used with the scanner is HP Deskscan II. The setting is 600 dpi to match the Hewlett Packard LaserJet 4M on which the masters for all Deegam publications are printed, using 100 gsm high white-coated paper. I know in advance what size I want to print the images (actual, enlarged, reduced) and scan them at that exact size. I start with the automatic brightness and contrast settings but often increase the latter. I find that the images do not often require manipulation but, when they do, I use Paint Shop Pro, v.4.12. Non-photographic images, such as the pane diagrams in Appendix 2 and the Profiles are created in Corel Draw. They are built up almost entirely from circles and squares using the program’s excellent scalable grid line system. When a pane has an image, e.g. a label on a se-tenant Prestige Booklet pane, or a Regional symbol, it is scanned and imported into the Corel drawing as a bitmap. My desktop publishing program is Ventura and, although I have versions up to 8, I mainly use v.4.2. This cannot import Corel’s CDR image into CGM form for loading into Ventura. However, if it includes a bitmap, I find it best to export it as an EPS file.
Milne:What event or circumstance prompts the production of a Deegam Report?
Myall: Publication dates for Deegam Reports are tied to the dates that the “Bookmark Journal” of the GB Decimal Stamp Book Study Circle goes to the printer. There are five of these a year but occasionally I include an extra Report if there is enough news to warrant it. I doubt if there will ever be an occasion when a Journal is due but there is nothing to go in a Report!
Milne: And now the final question. In your inspired judgment — which has to be better than that of most others — how much longer do you think the Machin series will run? And what will prompt its end?
Myall: At one time I thought that the new millennium might see a new image of the Queen, especially as one showing Her Majesty’s age was recently commissioned for the coinage. I now believe that the more symbolic Machin head will be retained indefinitely and that only her demise will prompt its end. I intend to be still writing about them when that happens (but her mother will be 100 next year).
Milne: Douglas, I know that I speak for the whole GBCC membership, and particularly your devout and dedicated legion of “Machin Maniacs” worldwide, when I say that we hope — no, we EXPECT — that you will be occupied in writing about Machins for many, many years to come — just as we hope, too, that Her Majesty (and the Queen Mum) will enjoy many more years of good health.
You have, through your willingness and the generous expending of a large amount of time and effort in answering the multitudinous and wide array of questions that GBCC members so clearly and enthusiastically wanted to ask you, more than justified my choice of you to be first “In the Spotlight.” The only negative I see, however, is that you have set such a high standard with the depth and knowledgeable professionalism of your responses that it is to be most difficult for anyone to follow you! Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Last update: Monday, April 23, 2007 |
 |
|
| Copyright © 2007 by Great Britain Collectors Club | ||