Article #12 for CHRONICLE No. 201
The 5¢ Green Twin Scroll, Misplaced Transfer
by Leonard H. Hartmann
All rights reserved, copyright © 2004, Leonard H. Hartmann
The Misplaced Transfers of the CSA General Issue Lithographs are one of the most difficult aspects of Confederate Philately to study and collect. Without exception they are rare and they often require a significant study into the plating to identify and further study into the printing stone layout to fully appreciate there mysteries.
The one partial exception being the 5c Green Twin Scroll from Stone 2 as it is evident to all that something is quite different. As would be expected it is also the most common misplaced transfer and perhaps the first to be discovered (Figure 1). By most common the author knows of only four examples though others may exits: an unused single and an unused block (by unused, I do not make a distinction for gum or the lack of it), a used single and a pair on cover.
An early description of the Twin Scroll is in Dietz's 1929 book "The Postal Service of The Confederate States of America", pages 105-106:
The Twin Scrolls, - This interesting freak shows a repetition of the lower left side of the design, with no indication of a shift. There is but one explanation: Two transfers, one slightly overlapping the other, and sticking together escaped detection in the group, and were transferred, jointly, on to the stone. Several sheets may have been printed before the Twins were discovered, when an erasure was made. A minor fill in of lines appears in the letter "E" of "POSTAGE", due to "dry stone." Both oddities are of a temporary nature.
Dietz gives a good story which has the essence of this variety but as more work has been done and other copies discovered it is evident that several major details are not right. First the fill in of the E of postage is a constant transfer stone variety and exist on every example of Transfer Stone 2, Position No. 1, both the green and blue printings, as are other less evident characteristics.
In the mid 1960's I obtained a poor photograph of a block of the 5c Green showing this Twin Scroll variety and from it I was able to deduct it appeared to be on a printing stone as Position 10 on the Upper Left Pane. We evidently had an upper sheet margin and on the right a narrow but still true vertical gutter between the left and right panes, for conformation note position 21 with the evident spur on the fragment of the right pane. I published this discovery in the "Confederate Philatelist", March 1968, page 22. The photograph was not clear enough to do anymore plating and at the time I assumed that the evident variety was all there was of the study. This narrow vertical gutter between the left and right panes, Figure 2, does not agree with the two known printing stones for the Blue printings of Stone 2.
A better image of this block showing the Twin Scroll is now available (Figure 2). To appreciate this variety we must first examine the normal Transfer Stone 2 which is illustrate as Figure 3, this image is from a Blue printing as it photographs better than the Green. The top row on the transfer stone is laid out poorly with respect to the following four rows; in essence the stamps are spaced a bit closer vertically with respect to the following rows; positions 5 - 10 are evidently closer together than they should be and position 10 appears oddly placed to the left. This Transfer Stone layout is by far the normal arrangement for Stone 2, the layout for virtually all of the stamps for both the Green and Blue printings.
If we compare the small fragment in our Twin Scroll, Figure 1, 3 & 4, to the original transfer Position 10, Figure 2, it appears to be identical to the original lower left corner, however with such a small fragment one can not be certain. A definitive conclusion can be reached by comparing the relative position of this fragment from Figures 3 and 4 with the normal transfer stone ( Figures 2 ), the exact locations are identical.
A cover having a vertical pair with the Twin Scroll misplaced transfer in the Hall sale had led to additional discoveries; R.A. Siegel, Sale 840, December 17 2001, lot 223; later sold by Siegel, Sale 867, November 15, 2003, lot 3354 (Figure 4). The pair was plated in the 1920's by Knapp and annotated on the back as "1 & 11 S-2" which is correct, with a remark "note no. 1 Rare". This Twin Scroll variety was evidently noted as something special and was perhaps the first indication of a misplaced transfer, most Knapp notations refer to a misplaced transfer as such.
We now know for this misplaced transfer No. 1 is over position No. 10 and the lower stamp No. 11 is over position No. 20 on a printing stone as confirmed by the unused block having the Twin Scroll in Figure 3. These two stamps, No 1 & 11, are in there normal alignment with respect to each other indicating they were cut from a transfer stone impression and transferred to the printing stone as a unit. The original No. 10 and 20 on the printing stone having been mostly erased, only a fraction of No. 10 remains. The removal of the original position No. 20 was complete and the new No. 11 is only evident in a multiple as the exact position is slightly different with respect to the adjacent stamps. Excluding these two replaced transfers and perhaps a slight clip to the upper right side of No. 19 every subject in Figure 3 is normal with respect to the transfer stone, even the fragments of three stamps on the right pane.
There is another possible explanation for our Misplaced Transfers which in this case I think is more probable than an erasure on the printing stone. As our No. 1/11 was placed over No. 10/20 with extremely small margins I suspect the replaced transfers were made to a printed transfer unit of 50 when this printing stone was laid down. One would print an extra transfer impressions and cut positions 1/11 from it and place it over 10/20 and then lay this unit down to produce the printing stone. I think the small but extremely sharp separation between the fragment and the entire stamp is most likely from a sharp knife or scissors cut than from grinding down a small portion of a printing stone. Lithographic printing stones were routinely ground down for re-use but normally as an entire stone or a large unit and not a small section.
In the near future I hope to do a wrap up article on the misplaced transfers listing all known examples and an attempt to put some overall logic into there production. If anyone has an example that was not in the Hall sale as a separate lot please advise. Knapp and Hall had most of the known examples but not all and new ones are still being discovered.
Leonard H. Hartmann, PO Box 36006, Louisville, Ky 40233, Leonard@pbbooks.net
Captions:
I never paid much attention to the production of the 10¢ Hoyer and Ludwig stamps; they are a bit difficult to plate because of the excellent workmanship. Everything was as it should be, there was no indications of significant plate damage, misplaced transfers, or of more than one printing stone. An extremely attractive but dull stamp to study.
With the CSA lithographs there seems to be a continuing discovery of new information. The Schuyler Rumsey sale of December 4-6, 2002 was a revelation with respect to the 10¢ Hoyer and Ludwig stamps. Lot 2328 is a nicely margined, well printed block of four of the 10¢ Lithograph in Blue that is definitely the Hoyer & Ludwig printing however at first glance it was a surprise (figure 1). Evidently noticeable, the upper and lower horizontal stamps nearly touch unlike the normal even margins for this stamp.
The basic plating of this block is normal with respect to the transfer stone positions. The top pair represents positions 41-42 and the lower positions 1-2. Positions 41-42 show a slight tilting, unusual for Hoyer and Ludwig. However it originates on the transfer stone and is thus normal for these positions. It is seen in all four transfer stone units on the printing plate. We have a gutter block consisting of the upper and lower transfer units. The almost overlapping of these stamps between the two transfer units is decidedly unusual. The only surviving pane of 100 of the 10c Hoyer and Ludwig is from the Right Pane, in Blue and is illustrated in August Dietz's "The Postal Service of the Confederate States of America", page 118. These positions are closer than normal but are not nearly as close as our block. Thus it is definitely not from this Right Pane.
A search for the Left Pane initially proved elusive. A section turned up in the Hall sale only to uncover another problem. A half pane, lower setting of the 10¢ Hoyer was in the R. A. Siegel sale of the Hall collection, December 17, 2001, lot 151. It is well illustrated in the catalog and I was able to examine it before the auction. It is evidently the Left Pane as it has a more than ample left sheet margin and even shows the left edge of the printing stone. By left and right I am referring to the printed stamps, the actual printing stone would be the reverse. This block shows upper margins for positions 1-2 that are not possible with our subject block of four. We thus now have a second printing stone for the 10¢ Hoyer as it does not match these right and left sections. A misplaced transfer for our block of four is unlikely though possible. At least one pair would have to be re-entered and the spacing is extremely close.
The Hall block of 50 was described as being the Right Pane and not the Left which leads us to the second part of this study. Scott Trepel advised that they described this block as the Right Pane because of the position of the imprint. In the 1929 Dietz book, Left and Right imprints are illustrated and described on page 116 (figure 2). The full right pane is also illustrated on page 118. Dietz properly attributed the position of the Right Pane imprint. The imprint "LITH. OF HOYER & LUDWIG, RICHMOND, VA." in the full right pane has the "G" of Ludwig between positions 95 and 96. Dietz shows another imprint that has this "G" under the center of position 96, a most evident difference. One can assume Dietz had not seen the Hall block of 50 and thus deduced the other imprint was from the Left Pane. I do not think Dietz realized the existance of multiple printing stones for a given issue. He also concluded the imprints were drawn by hand on the printing plate as the two imprints are different, the Dietz's Left one is about 10% longer than the Right, 42 mm versus 37 mm. We illustrate the Right Pane imprint in Blue (figure 3) and in Red (figure 4). An example of the Right 10¢ Red imprint that appears to show a portion of "Richmond" erased or perhaps a poorly inked impression is show, figure 5. To speculate on this last stamp at this time would be without basis but it is being shown should another similar example be reported.
A search of the imprints for the Hoyer & Ludwig 10¢ in both the Blue and Red printings has only found the positioning for the one described as the Right Pane, all examples known to the author are identical. For the Right pane there are at least four unused examples in Red and a few more in Blue along with a larger number of used Red singles but only a few used Blue singles.
The identical positioning of the imprint for the lower settings of the left and right pane is easily explained by the imprint being on the transfer stone. For the upper setting the margin was cut off when the printing plate was laid down.
In conclusion the commonly found printings for the 10¢ Hoyer and Ludwig in both Blue and Red appear to be from one printing stone, the Left and Right imprints are identical. A second printing stone with a slightly different imprint and position of the imprint in addition to the poor spacing between the upper and lower transfer stone units evidently exists, at least for the Blue printing. We assume these two deviations from the norm are on the same printing stone but this may or may not be the case. We need to look for other examples that suggest a second printing stone. Remember, the 5¢ Stone 2 stamps were printed from at least three different printing stones without considering the misplaced transfers that may well represent another stone or stones.
The imprint that Dietz attributed to the Left pane has not been seen by your author. If any one owns or has seen an example showing the Left imprint please advise, the information would be most appreciated. At least one must have existed.
A special thanks to Jerry S. Palazolo, Scott Trepel, Schuyler J. Rumsey, Jack E. Molesworth, M. C. O'Reilly and S. Y. Trimble V for their assistance in this article.
Leonard H. Hartmann, PO Box 36006, Louisville, Ky 40233, Leonard@pbbooks.net
jpg identity