The France "Sower" series

here's an example

broken line in cap, lines on skirt on hip broken  (vertical measurement 22.15 mm, ... thus far looking like Type II  except the engravers name.... the "O" appears to be complete...

but for now, it seems more Type II than anything else... if the lines on the skirt were clearer, one could almost make the case for a Type as the "H" in MOUCHON looks  almost like a "X" and a case could be made that it is 'broken"

I understand your confusion. My experience with the types was that it was not always a clean cut for the characteristics e.g. the shadow under the 'R', the line in the cap or the outline at the back/waist. I found lots of stamps that seemed to fall 'in between' on either one or more of the characteristics. That's the advantage of having a big selection of stamps to study, one can hope to find copies that have more apparent characteristics and are thus more easy to identify.
Unfortunately my experience was that these were few and not necessarily the best looking stamps I would prefer to display.

Not much help from me except an acknowledgement of the challenges you're facing and a encouragement to keep up the work. One does not necessarily find all the types, even if one would want to, and that's alright. It's also good to have a few empty spaces so the study and struggle with the Semeuse can continue in the future. It would be kind of sad if all varieties are found and the relationship with that fine girl is 'completed'. At least that's how I feel about such series I have invested much effort in; I do not want the joyful and somewhat 'painful' love/hate relationship to end 😊
Best of luck!

Here's the guidelines I am working from


seems straightforward (?), but Types II and III are the most ..... vague


They have the elongated "wrinkle" in the cap (trait parasite), and II ahs the broken lines in the hip/skirt, and III is unbroken.... but.... ...would it be safe to assume  (dangerous).... that shadow under R or not, is not  a definable trait, nor are the lines on the back of the forearm for Types II and III?

The signatures... i have found this very problematic, having found stamps which meet the criteria of the "hat" and/or the "skirt lines", but do not follow either variation in the printed "faults" in Mouchon? (signature)

anyone have any thoughts / expertise here???/

thanks
Stan

I received this small lot today and was happily surprised to see that several of the stamps were improvements over my existing (mounted) shades- 

from top l-r  10c Type III, 15c Type IV, 20c  dark brown-lilac (it looks more like  a 'chocolate" in the scan, but when compared to my example of 'chocolate" it is lighter and shows more off the lilac/purple hues,

and bottom row   25 c blue and a 30c very pale/faded violet

the 15c, 20c and 25c are the newest residents in the books!

There are indeed two types. Take a good look at the length of the top line of 1 as well as the finer writing in POSTES. This is in my opinion easier to differentiate.

Does anyone have a good example of the "amputee" variant? I thought it was the back foot, but I see someone on e-Bay  offering an "arm" amputee" ...which looks like just the lower portion of the back forearm is missing..... (which I have at least one or two.... is that the variant?  Y&T (Et. a.) mention it, but I see no examples of what to actually look for.

I'm working on a page Y&T # 235 and it is mention for the Type IIIB, and I'm trying to decide it include... or not

Yes René, that would be the stamp in question.... If I can determine what "it" is, and I have an example then I will include. If not, I honestly don't think I would seek one out.

Y&T 2021 *the 125th anniversary issue) lists it... and also listed for  #237 (40c outremer)  and here specifies hand (main) for both denominations but doesn't say which one... I'm guessing the right hand)

so I guess I'll stop admiring her feet!

This thread has been quiet for a while...

All stamps have been through a soaking regime of water w/detergent ->rinse -> peroxide -> rinse

I am just delving into  Yvert # 140 25 centimes blue  Semeuse cameé  7 variety "Types" and  4 color nuances (not listed on all types. There are also various paper types listed, among them GC, X and "yellowish paper".  Below are front back, the Dark Blue (2nd row 1 & 2*, and bottom stamp) are Type IA which also lists paper GC and X  (only Type IA) and Type IV list as Very Dark Blue... [ there is also a blue -black 1907..... so how much 'darker" each is  unclear at this point] but no paper variations.  (yellowish paper is listed only for  Type IIIB which has only one listed color "Blue" which 

* year dates makes both  second row 1 & 2 Type IA , late issues did not start until 1920 and later

The top row has the most noticeable difference in paper color tone, and the one (center) date of 1928 puts it in the realm of the IIIB, however one of the traits (head cap) is obscured by the obliteration)... but is this a 'yellowish paper"

I have some ither stamps and none of these look like GC paper.... but I don't know what "X" paper is supposed to look like (anybody?)

Middle row is not as bright white as the bottom stamp (and of the possibly several 100 of these I have, the bright white paper is the most common. If anyone has examples of each, please post!

Thank you

I have  aremedy for that

It is easiest to detect the "Papier X" on MNH and MH stamps. Below is an example of a MNH Paper X



"Papier X" is white paper of a high quality. It was first used as an essay in 1912 (probably). The gum is the defining characteristic with its cross-hatched pattern of thin ridges.

In "Les Timbres-Poste au Type Semeuse Camee de 1907" by Storch and Françon (printed 1981) they note that, "the special paper was purchased exclusively for the sheets to print the 30 x 10 Centime booklet. Since there was extra, it was used for other stamps." (my translation). It was meant for typography printing.

I believe it was used on some definitives as well as the Sowers, from 1912 or 1913 up to 1916. Probably the privations of The Great War prevented them from continuing to manufacture the higher quality paper.

If trying to identify a used stamp, it should be the stamps with the whitest paper. Strange that you say that of 100 x 25 centimes you inspected, the majority were on the bright white paper. Statistically speaking, the Papier X is not a rare stamp but, is valued at around 4 times the value of the standard Type IA of the 25 centime. I had perhaps 200 of the same stamp to sort through and did not come across a single Papier X.

Sorry I cannot say for sure that the single stamp on the bottom is Papier X. It looks like it anyway in contrast to the other stamps in your picture.

uppercanadian  That is a splendid image you have posted!! (How did you get the gum pattern so distinct?)Thanks for the information!  I can see that the stamp image you posted is not Yvert #140 (I'm guessing 136??  Regarding the comment about most of the stamps had white paper... this is meant to mean generally whiter than the stamps in the 1st and 2nd row. I have a number of mint with gum (and a few unused/no gum) that I will look at to see if I can find this gum pattern.  I have many more to look through!                                                                                                     
I will look at the very white ungummed stamp(s) under the scope to see if there is any trace of the cross-hatching being 'pressed" into the paper.

Below are three stamps which I belive to be (l-r) blue, dark blue, and blue-black.

below is the blue-black stamp.... I can't really tell for cedrtain whether it  has  a cross-hatched gum (this will be first under the scope!


...more later

Two images taken using my dissecting cope (somewhere between 10 and 45X) - This is 2 of the stamps last posted, and a close-up of the gum... opinions welcome

this is what undisturbed gum seems to look like on most stamps I have from this period. Just a random pattern from being applied (with a roller?)


This one has more of 'diamond"pattern which I am wondering if this is actually the fabled "X" paper?


Here also is a close-up of the flawed "S" mentioned earlier