It would appear that comments by the late Mr. Gerry Bater FRPSL has also been made on the subject of the Wilding multiple crown papers, and he came to a similar conclusion with regards to the need for masking/camouflaging of the fluorescent contamination created by some of the rags that were inappropriate, and also giving a varying range of fluorescences with the use of additional optical brightening agents during the pulp stage (see attachment derived from the 1993 GB journal)
No doubt other eminent philatelists I think will have come to a similar conclusion relating to the fluorescent fibres (contaminants) found in some of the untreated papers along with all the inconsistent variables of fluorescences to be seen.
The need for whiter paper came about mainly in 1962, but initially In order to streamline the processing of mail, during the late 1950s various trials were introduced based on experimental work carried out at the GPO's Dollis Hill establishment with an automatic letter facing machine (ALF) as being part of the sorting process, it was these experiments in which the system involved graphite lines being printed on the back of stamps so that all the letters would face the same way, previously this function was very time consuming and therefore contributed greatly to the overall processing system.
It was eventually found that just the phosphor band tagging to the front of a stamp instead of graphite lines on the back was a more suitable and viable alternative based on further experimental trials.
This is one of the earlier documentaries of the systems inauguration with the use of a prototype ALF machine.
Watch "Letter Sorting at the Post Office, 1950's - Film 19871" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/XPVOM1dPj98
One of the reasons for the production of a whiter paper in 1962 was to increase/enhance the automatic letter facing machines' capabilities.
The more modern equivalent developed since the original graphite lined stamps in the late 1950s can now be seen in the following film, relating to the processing of letters sent from A to B without graphite lines and only using phosphor banded tagging to the front of the stamps. >
Watch "How the UK Postal Service (Royal Mail) Operates" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/1BVHPmGIxBQ
Various other related videos can also be seen on the YouTube site.
A further article on fluorescence in stamp papers was made in THE GB JOURNAL dated MARCH/APRIL 1998 Vol. 36 No.2 pages 34/5
Which goes by the heading of FLUORESCENCE - MYTHS OR THEORIES written by Robin.J.Tibbenham that reads as follows >
"Most collectors of modem stamps know that fluorescence exists - even collect stamps which do not exhibit it, but ignore all the other variations.
Many philatelic authors propose theories -where there are few facts -to, as it were, fill the gaps. Many of these theories have become accepted as fact by the more credulous. However very few consider how logical the theory actually is and choose not to query it. Thus statements like 'chalky surfaced paper', 'Optical Brightening Agents were added after 1971' (implying they were not previously) and 'fluorescence in these papers is due to the OBAs present in the rags of which the "stuff' was partially made' get repeated and repeated until they are thought to be factual, whereas they are definite misconceptions at the least.
Fluorescence is emitted light, in the visible spectrum (we can see it), caused by irradiation by ultra-violet light. It occurs when the light source is present; whereas phosphorescence, although similar, can only be seen, by us, in the dark, after the light source has been removed.
These contrary reactions were used by the Post Office to assist in the sorting of mail by machine -from the time that phosphor bands were introduced; right up to 1991 when fluorescence was dispensed with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was also a useful side effect -UV, from the sun, caused the reaction in normal light, making the paper look whiter. This was important to the classic image that was produced by Arnold Machin: it looked much better as a clear-cut image.
Naturally the other requirement for this was a paper surface on which the ink would dry as printed, with very little absorbtion which would cause blurred lines.
From the time paper was made it was appreciated that a coating was desirable for writing (and later printing) paper. With most stamp papers this took the form of size, a glue-like substance. However the need for very rapid drying, with very rapid printing, meant that a new, less-absorbant coating was required - so calcareous materials were introduced to coat the paper with. These were actually introduced at the turn of the century. (Readers interested in this matter are referred to the article by Miles D. Glazer in the November 1997 issue of GSM.)
Because it was easier to describe all these as chalky, this wrong description lived on and has not been corrected by many who should know better. In fact china clay is the principal ingredient used for paper due to be printed with photogravure images and only lithographic printing requires the harder-surfaced chalk.
As these coatings were applied as a paste, before being heat treated, it was easier and cheaper to add any fluors at the same time. Unfortunately there was, originally, no standard laid down and so varying amounts were added. Additionally the heat process was either difficult to control and/or produced a varied effect on the fluors - causing them to emit more or less fluorescence.
This addition to the coating was not controlled until 1971, when minimum standards were set, but these were often exceeded and FCP is difficult (in some cases) to be certain about, as a direct result.
Another consequence is that there are papers whose coating fluor varies from 0 to 3 in the Wilding era, from 0 to 6 in the Machin pre-decimal era and from 0 to 10 in the decimal era.This as measured on a scale where 5 is (decimal) OCP and 10 is FCP. Many different fluorescent papers are recognised - P. 0. & Contractors paper in high values (Castles), whiter paper for Wildings, three different papers have been accepted, by most, for the Machin pre-decimal era. Plus a whole range, OCP, FCP, PPP, PCPl & 2, ACP, etc., are recognised in the decimal Machin era. Although what are (wrongly) known as Fluorescent
Brightener Omitted stamps exist in the Machin pre-decimal era, they are no more accepted than the obvious variations in brightness.
The stamps which do not exhibit a fluorerscent brightness, when they should, are the result of a faulty system causing the fluors to become inert, rather than missing. Thus these should perhaps be refered to as F .B. Inert.
Because the faulty, or uncontrollable, system produced a continually differing brightness, it is difficult to be positive in identifying differing coatings. This is a matter for the chemists not the more casual enquirer like me. However the extremes of brightness exist and, I think, are very collectable.
Collectors got used to using an ultra-violet light to identify phosphor bands, so why does this fluorescent variation continue to be ignored in the earlier eras?
The (probable) two papers in the Wilding era are recognised as different but possibly not the true difference. The (at least) three papers are recognised by the Machin Collectors ' Club Catalogue and partially by the Deegam Handbook. However the full extent of these coating variations is not yet known. If, as I think, they are collectable, is there no one who will take a more active interest in them?
I would be interested to hear from anyone who is interested - particularly anyone who has access to a spectrometer."
The above article was taken from the
MARCH/APRIL 1998 GB JOURNAL Vol.36 No.2 pages 34/35
I am not surprised over Mr T's frustration regarding fluorescence, as catalogues only usually give the coating, take for instance this 14p dark blue Machin issued 1988, it is specified that it was printed on FCP, but does not stipulate the type of paper which was coated, in order to find that out you need to inspect the non-printed side of the stamp (the uncoated side).
In the attachment above you will notice there are two different types of paper that has been used, but the difference has never been recorded/listed !
It has also been discovered that the fluorescent coatings applied to many of the Machin stamps issued up until 1991was of a fugitive nature : see my article originally posted on 4th September 2020 relating to this topic >
https://www.gbps.org.uk/boards/viewtopi ... =32&t=1720
The mention by the author in relation to coatings should not be attributed to the majority of Wilding definitives with multiple crown watermark due to the fact they were printed on uncoated papers but mainly in conjunction with the commemorative issues beginning in the early 1960s.
The only watermarked Wilding definitives with coatings was from stamps produced for the 2/- holiday booklet and the 3d Isle of Man in 1963, both classified as being on chalk surfaced paper.
It would also appear that Mr. Tibbenham was not aware of the contaminated papers that lead to additional optical brightening agents being implemented and used for masking or camouflage purposes, along with the other remedial action being taken such as oxidation (degradation) in order to rectify the contaminating fluorescent fibres that had been inadvertently added.
Many years ago around mid-late1964 (nobody seems knows for sure) the papers produced for the printing of stamps supplied to Harrison and sons started to become contaminated due to the use of rags supplied for their manufacture having high amounts of stilbene in them, a substance used in washing powders being highly fluorescent that give clothes that whiter than white look.
It's a possibility that about that time the original supplier of the rags may have been replaced and the rags sourced from elsewhere, I can only surmise as no official records seem to have been made.
A mention of this debacle was made by the late Mr Austin Barnes in his article in the GBJ by the name of >
THE PAPERS OF THE MULTIPLE CROWN WATERMARK ISSUES : dated MAY/JUNE 2020 Vol.58 No.3 P 69
" also observed fluorescent flecks (fibres) on a number of issues from 1965. These findings can be interpreted by reference to comments made by Post Office Chief Chemist Aubrey Walker in 1979 in the Philatelic Bulletin, Vol. 17, p. 46:
‘Historically, OBAs were first detected in British stamps as accidental highly fluorescent flecks or fibres randomly distributed in the paper used during the Wilding series. This effect built up slowly until the paper manufacturers deliberately added OBA. The difference is only one of degree, there is no sudden transition point. At that time the paper was not coated, so both sides show similar properties.’
It seems highly likely that the fluorescent fibres originated from the use in the paper-making process of rags contaminated with OBAs from detergents.
An explanation of the overall fluorescence exhibited by some issues is that the paper-makers, perhaps struggling to achieve satisfactorily uniform whiteness simply from the use of clean water, experimented with the addition of OBAs to improve further the whiter paper.
Alternatively it may have been an attempt simply to mask the fluorescent fibres. Possibly the provision of an effluent treatment plant at the Ivybridge mill in 1963 was in preparation for these experiments."
This is just another piece of the Jigsaw appertaining to the variations of paper used to print the multiple crown Wilding stamps.
May I also refer to a recent item issued in the following GBPS NEWSLETTER dated MAY/JUNE 2001 by the name of PAPER AND PAPER COATINGS by Robin Tibbenham.
It begins with >
Robin Tibbenham has been endeavouring to raise the profile of this aspect of collecting, especially in modern issues for some time. In this article he sets out his claim that it deserves much greater attention than the relatively few collectors who are currently looking into it.
Paper. Not a very evocative word is it? But have Postal
Historians and Philatelists ever stopped to think where their hobbies would be without it?
Much has been written, recently, about the deterioration in
paper, in the form of foxing etc.
Much more will be written about paper preservation, when it is realised, properly, how much will be lost when paper finally disintegrates.
Records written on paper could be re-stored in/on other forms. However the artefacts themselves will eventually be lost. Museums have preserved early paper items — but will they even try to preserve the many thousands of small items, like stamps?
Paper has been with civilised mankind for over three thousand years, in varying forms. It was initially quite expensive to make, but within the last few hundred years has been getting cheaper.
So where do philatelists come in? Paper has always been the least considered part of the production of stamps. No philatelic authority uses the best quality paper to print its stamps on — in fact most use the cheapest form available, commensurate with ensuring the job is done properly.
As a direct result those who take an interest in the older stamps are finding that they have an increasing number of problems to contend with.
The other side of the coin is that the situation is no better with the production of modern stamps — or is it? Considerations of preservation have not yet troubled the collectors of modern stamps — but considerations of the way the different types of paper/coating has (or should).
Do the Optical Bleaching Agents (OBA) used make it more likely that modern stamps will survive longer? They certainly make a difference to the way the stamps appear in natural light. Since we do not know exactly what or how much of what was used, we still have a problem.
Is there any other good news? Yes, of course there is. That fountain of all knowledge (supposedly), Stanley Gibbons Specialised Catalogue, used to inform collectors when the suppliers of paper to the printers were changed, and the changes of shades etc. were discussed. That stopped a long time ago and the consideration of the effect of such changes and more importantly the changes brought about by coating the paper have been ignored by all philatelists. Rather it should be said that many have noted the changes caused, but none have taken much notice of them.
Do the changes of content in paper and its coating matter? I think so and have approached both the Post Office and the printers on the subject. On the basis that it is best to start at the top, the Chief Executive of the PO was written to, but he was too busy to reply!
The more recent problems from 1960 onwards relating mainly to production, and which bridges the divide between Wilding and Machin collectors, has not been properly addressed. Don’t you think that it is time to face this and show future collectors how well we cope with major problems? Or do the majority of you feel that there is no problem?
As per the above newsletter : However, my understanding of (OBA's) relates to "optical brightening agents" being a dye such as stilbene and is therefore not an "optical bleaching agent" as stated by Robin.
Just to put things into perspective on another issue, is that Robin appears to be worried about his stamps turning to dust In around a 1000 years time, "don't worry yourself Robin, as by then I don't think you will need to worry about your precious stamps anyway, as you will have gone the same way" !!!
Wilding Mad.