I am a late comer to the Notice Board and perhaps you are happy with the advice that you have been given. However I would just like to correct an inference that seem to have been implied and that is related to the Chalon issues. There are no printers proofs recorded. There are Plate Proofs and Die Proofs Both of these two categories if genuine will be expensive Often you will see Hausberg Reproductions offered as 'proofs' and the same situation applies in relation to the Jolliffe Reproductions. Both of these categories were printed by the NZ Government Printer, Wellington. So beware of Chalon material offered as 'Printers Proofs'
Posted by: Bob
25/5/2012, 1:32 pm
Reprints or Reproductions
Hi J-LW I agree with your comments about the problem of Hausburg 'Reproductions' and Joliffe 'Reproductions' being offered as 'proofs'. As 1000 sheets of the Hausburg 2d die II and 600 sheets of the Joliffe were printed, the price often asked is far too high.
One would hope that not too many of the Joliffe 'Reproductions' would appear for sale as they were printed to be included in the 1913 book: 'The History of New Zealand Stamps' and so any for sale were produced by vandalising that book. My website page at: www.nzstamps.org.uk/chalon/reprint/index.html contains scans of the Joliffe 'Reproductions', but they are from my copy of the book.
In my web page, I use the traditional terms Hausburg and Joliffe 'Reprints', rather than 'Reproductions'. As you are very well aware, there have been recent discussions in the RPSNZ 'The New Zealand Stamp Collector' about the term 'Reprint' and you correctly use the official RPSNZ definition for a Reproduction which is: "A printing in black or in colours, other than those in which stamps were issued, made from a plate after a stamp has been withdrawn from sale at post offices."
According to the RPSNZ definition, the Hausburg and Joliffe prints are reproductions.
To my mind, the crucial point about the Hausburg and Joliffe issues is that they were printed from the original plates and that this should be clearly distinguished from reproductions or facsimiles that were not. The question of colour is of much lesser significance. If new dies or plates are made, then any printings from them are, of course, reproductions. If productions are made using scanning technologies, they are facsimiles.
That is why I prefer the traditional definition of 'Reprint' given in the British Postal Museum and Archive website (which I gather is taken from the Staney Gibbons definition): "Impressions from the original plates, blocks or stones, from which stamps were printed, taken after the issue of the stamps to the Post Office has ceased: impressions printed not for use as stamps, but as specimens for sale to collectors."
You must be logged in to post messages to this board.
The NZSGB is not responsible for the content of messages posted and requests that members of the Discussion Board take care when posting messages to avoid words which are defamatory or in any way offensive.
Hosted for FREE by Boardhost. 10 years of reliable service. Create yours!