Beryllium Guy
Moderator 
Posts: 5,654 
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Dec 8, 2022 17:40:25 GMT
Moderator Note: This thread on bluing was created as an outgrowth from an earlier thread titled How to identify imperforate Penny Red plate numbers? in which some information about the history of Perkins Bacon's use of paper which became blued was presented. As the direction of this line of inquiry was about the blued paper and not specifically about the Penny Reds, it was decided to relocate these latest posts into a thread of their own.
One thing that makes this difficult to do, according to Gibbons, is that the later mineral-based inks fade with exposure to sunlight. At this point some explanation of the change from blue paper to white, and the change in inks as well as the Fleet St fire in March 1857 is in order here. So, twice since they were awarded the printing contract, Perkins Bacon had faced pressure to lower the contract price: first in 1851, when Henry Archer tried to win the perforating contract, and then again in 1856 when De La Rue submitted a very competitive tender. Prussiate of Potash, which was added to the ink, and is what was responsible for the bluing in the paper, was the most expensive ingredient in the then vegetable-based ink. Eliminating this was the key to maintaining profit on the contract. So, in 1856 experiments began to first reduce the amount of Prussiate of potash, and then eliminate it entirely. The partially blued stamps are listed in Gibbons as the regular blued paper. Gibbons then lists printings on cream tinted or white paper in both red brown and various red and orange red shades. The cream colour on some comes from reactions in the pigment of the inks. But the paper itself never changed - just its perceived colour. As the bluing was eliminated, further experiments were done to thin the ink with oil, which took the colour from red to rose. Many thanks for your interesting recent posts, Chris. I am a collector of early GB, although I have not devoted much time to it up to now. Over the past couple of years, I have become much more involved with the line-engraved Cape Triangles, which were initially also printed by Perkins Bacon using the same process as for the Penny Reds, according to what I have read, mainly from: Stevenson, D. Alan. The Triangular Stamps of Cape of Good Hope. H.R. Harmer Ltd., London, 1950. Stevenson also writes about the bluing of the paper, stating that it was an unintentional consequence of using the prussiate of potash in the ink, the purpose of which was to prevent fraudulent removal of cancellations by chemical means. He wrote that the blue color resulted from a chemical reaction between the ink and the paper, and he mentions the "sizing" or weak glue that was used to hold the paper together as a possible cause of that reaction. He also wrote that the intensity of the bluing was a result of how wet the paper was at the time of printing. This latter statement in particular would seem to be at odds with what you have written about the amount of prussiate of potash being reduced intentionally over time to eliminate its use due to its high cost. Are you able to elaborate further about your source of information about the bluing and comment on Stevenson's remarks? Also, we have a member here on TSF, michael , who is a specialist in Perkins Bacon stamps and printing processes. So, I am tagging him in this post to see if he may add some comments to this discussion. If we end up going down a rabbit hole about the bluing of paper in these issues, I will move any posts on that subject to a new thread on that specific subject instead of derailing this thread about Penny Reds. Thanks again for your informative post and looking forward to your further comments. 
|
|
brixtonchrome
**Member** 
Active now after an eternity!
Posts: 28
What I collect: British Commonwealth Omnibus
|
Post by brixtonchrome on Dec 9, 2022 13:48:06 GMT
Hi Beryllium Guy
My source was the SG Specialized catalogue for QV line engraved issues. It does state that these findings are the result of recent research. The long-held view was that the post office had requested the removal of Prussiate of Potash from the ink. However, recent research has failed to uncover any evidence of this. Instead, there has been considerable evidence that its elimination was a two pronged cost saving measure. One, it was the most expensive ingredient in the ink and its elimination saved PB considerably on the contract and two, it was caustic, and was therefore the major factor behind the rapid wear of the plates up to that point. If you look at the perforated issues after the switchover in 1857 there are many fewer plates used, and many of these were still perfectly serviceable when the stamps with letters in all four corners were introduced in 1864, for the reds. In contrast, average plate life before this was 6-9 months.
Stevenson's comments about the bluing echo what is written in Gibbons. I believe they mention the sizing of the paper as well in their discussion.
|
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,654
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Dec 9, 2022 16:17:17 GMT
Many thanks for your follow-up response, Chris ( brixtonchrome). Thanks for letting me know the source of your info. It is especially interesting that this is the result of recent research. I am already wondering if this info can only be found in the SG Queen Victoria Specialized Catalogue, or if it also appears in the latest edition of the British Commonwealth Catalogue, for which I just paid over $100. Clearly, I need to get a copy of this source material, one way or the other. One part of my question that you didn't really answer, though, concerns the various degrees of intensity of bluing found in these stamps. I am trying to figure out if this was largely intentional and that it changed over time as a result of reducing the amount of prussiate of potash used in the ink, or if it was mainly to do with the wetness of the paper, as has been believed with respect to Cape Triangles for a long time. The reason that this matters, at least to me, is that for Cape Triangles, SG has used separate catalogue numbers for Deeply Blued Paper (COGH, SG1-2) and Slightly Blued Paper (COGH, SG3-4). For GB, if I am not mistaken, SG uses the description Paper More or Less Blued and dispenses with separate catalogue listings according to the degree of bluing. I have been asking SG to consider using the Paper More or Less Blued description for Cape Triangles, too. I have had the impression that it all came down to how wet the paper was at the time of printing, making it more or less arbitrary whether any specific sheet of stamps would have deeply or medium or slightly blued paper. But now if you are saying that there was an intentional and progressive reduction in the use of prussiate of potash that would have directly affected the degree of bluing, then perhaps the SG Catalogue listings are more correct as they are, making the Deeply Blued Paper the first issues and Slightly Blued Paper the subsequent ones. Can you comment or quote any specifics from the SG source material? Many thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Dec 9, 2022 21:28:05 GMT
Beryllium Guy , I don't have the latest edition of the specialised Queen Victoria catalogue so I cannot confirm if there is any additional information on the blueing. The QV Volume 1 16th edition says the blueing was eliminated in 1857 either by not using prussiate of potash or by introducing a neutralising agent. The connection with the fire might just be a co-incidence.
As far as I have read the variation of blueing was caused by the varying dampness of the paper as detailed in Edward Bacon's book. I haven't heard anything to the contrary, even on the specialised Mulready Forum who actually advise S.G. of suggested changes to the catalogue. If there was a gradual reduction of prussiate of potash from 1857, this couldn't account for the variable COGH blueing as they were printed in 1853.
The following are pages 110 to 113 from Edward Bacon's book, "The Line-Engraved Postage Stamps of Great Britain Printed by Perkins Bacon & Co. Vol 1", Published by Chas. Nissen & Co., Limited in 1920. It is out of copyright and readily available as a free pdf on the internet so I'm sure it is OK for me to reproduce it here.
|
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,654
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Dec 10, 2022 16:06:21 GMT
Thanks so much for weighing in on this subject, michael. You are the most knowledgeable collector of my acquaintance on all things Perkins Bacon, so I am really happy to get your comments here about the bluing. Thank you very much for your point about the dates, which had not really registered with me when I wrote my response to Chris ( brixtonchrome). I totally agree that 1857 doesn't align with what we know about Cape Triangles at least in terms of blued versus non-blued paper. The Triangles on blued paper would have been printed in 1853 as you point out, but perhaps also in 1854? In his book, Stevenson cites dates of receipt in Cape Town for shipments, but not printing dates or whether the stamps were on blued or non-blued paper. The SG Catalogue shows non-blued Cape Triangles starting in 1855, so that also makes me wonder about the statement that: This would not seem to make sense if the 1855 date is correct for the first Cape Triangles issued on non-blued paper, which is taken directly from the SG Catalogue. Hmmm.... any thoughts on that, Michael or Chris? |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Dec 11, 2022 10:02:34 GMT
Chris brixtonchrome, I've enjoyed reading your blog, they are well written and informative. I hope you get a quantity of cape triangles soon to talk about.  Chris Beryllium Guy, the printing records are in De Worm's book and make interesting reading. The 1d triangles were printed regularly in 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856 and 1858 onwards. There is however a gap in the printings between September 1855 and September 1856 and between 4 October 1856 and 9 January 1858. This means that the printings wouldn't have been affected by the fire in March 1857 and any experiments that might have taken place in late 1856 and 1857. I assume the printings up to September 1855 (SG1&3) would be subject to blueing and the ones from 1858 (SG5a) onwards wouldn't be susceptible to blueing. This leaves the printings on 20 September, 27 September and 4 October 1856 open to discussion. These are presumably SG5, printed in 1856 but listed as 1857, the year they were shipped and invoiced. Allis says these are the 1st not to exhibit blueing. BYW, the SG listing descriptions haven't changed (the numbers have) since at least 1929, my earliest catalogue. |
|
rod222
Member 
Posts: 9,877
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps, Ephemera and Catalogues
|
Post by rod222 on Oct 25, 2023 9:27:45 GMT
Perkins Bacon Die Proofs
State 1 solid field, and State 2 with lined field and King's nose crooked
4 Proofs $25,000
Source: Abacus Auctions, #253 22nd September 2023
Page 25
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 25, 2023 11:30:20 GMT
Yes, I saw those, thanks for posting, sadly well out of my price range  |
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,654
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Oct 25, 2023 13:40:55 GMT
Thanks for your post, Rod ( rod222). It's an interesting bit of info about these KGV proofs, although not actually related to the bluing of the paper. Should I consider renaming the thread to align better with this sort of content? I am open to suggestions, so please feel free to comment (you, too, michael). I just changed the title of this thread because I realized that I had once again fallen into the trap of writing " use of blued paper." It must always be remembered that the paper was perfectly normal for its time, and it unintentionally turned blue due to a chemical reaction between a constituent in the ink (prussiate of potash) used in the printing process and a constituent in the paper. Stevenson theorized in his book about Cape Triangles that the constituent in the paper that reacted might have been the "sizing," which is the weak glue that held the paper together. Whatever the specific reaction that resulted in the paper's turning blue, I need to keep reminding myself that Perkins Bacon (PB) never used blued paper. They used normal paper, which just happened to turn blue due to an unexpected reaction during the printing process. And as we know from some of the excellent references cited earlier in this thread, PB worked to change their process to eliminate the occurrence of bluing, at which they eventually succeeded, but the paper that they used, at least for printing Cape Triangles, was the same stock for all the issues. They changed the ink and the printing process, not the paper. It was also this same paper that was turned over to De La Rue when PB lost the contract for the Cape Triangles, and there is apparently documentation to confirm that. I hope I am not beating the proverbial dead horse here, but I felt a need to write this as clearly as I could. |
|
One thing that makes this difficult to do, according to Gibbons, is that the later mineral-based inks fade with exposure to sunlight.
