The Samovar

RSFSR 100r

Duck - 12/24/2007 at 17:22

Has found out here such a stamp.
Whether the given version is known? It would be desirable to learn on a leaf with what control sign it there is also number of this mark in a leaf!

GregMirsky - 12/26/2007 at 12:26

Rossica Journal 149 (December 2007) has a large article (FlySpecker section) on this specific issue. There is an illustration of similar item, but unfortunately authors could not find plate position. We are still looking for it. See illustration below. I would be interested to get high resolution scan of this item (300 dpi) for possible inclusion in next FlySpecker article. Please email it to me at

Duck - 12/26/2007 at 14:41

Thanks for the answer!
Scan a stamp to you has sent!

jlechtanski - 1/8/2008 at 17:27

This looks like a case where some foreign matter was on the paper when the image was printed and eventually fell off.

If that is the case, it would not be a constant variety.

jlechtanski - 1/9/2008 at 11:03

Definitely not so!

Is this an unknown constant plate variety?

Duck - 1/10/2008 at 14:31

Исходное сообщение добавлено jlechtanski
Definitely not so!

Is this an unknown constant plate variety?

I think, that presence of 3 stamps from different sheets confirms, that it not a random error, and a repeating defect of a cliche.
I can somebody show the same stamps, or only the happy owner of such version?

GregMirsky - 1/11/2008 at 18:09

This veriety definitely looks like something that worth looking for. There are number of "freaks" like this one show up at some point during printing and stay there until somebody at the factory notices it and corrects cliche. Let's try to find partial or full sheet with this "broken frame". I definitely will check my full sheets of this stamp. Another challenge is to find the same variety on perforated stamp...

Gary - 1/11/2008 at 18:35

How about on cover as well? Or were they never used or intended for use on cover?:drummer:

GregMirsky - 1/12/2008 at 00:03

There are plenty of these 100 rub stamps (perforated and imperforated) on RSFSR inflation covers. They are definitely were widely used. This is not a problem.

The problem we are trying to address here by asking for sheet or partial sheet is to establish LOCATION of this variety on the plate.

It would be nice to find this specific variety on cover, but it does not increase our joint philatelic knowledge about this issue. The fact that somebody glued stamp with broken corner on the envelop really does not create new piece of philatelic information, only nice piece to exhibit.

jlechtanski - 1/12/2008 at 14:39

I think seeing a variety such as this on cover could be useful in the case of printers' waste that never made it to the post offices.

It would be truly odd if DUCK has three mint copies of this variety, but no covers or even used stamps exist.

Duck - 1/14/2008 at 00:01

Исходное сообщение добавлено jlechtanski
I think seeing a variety such as this on cover could be useful in the case of printers' waste that never made it to the post offices.

It would be truly odd if DUCK has three mint copies of this variety, but no covers or even used stamps exist.

I think what to find on an envelope the given stamp very few chances. Most likely sheets with such stamp was not much. Very appreciable defect, and a cliche have quickly replaced.

Following defect - 2 tails at the letter "У". There is at somebody a same version?

Gary - 1/14/2008 at 18:54

Then why can we not call it an EFO?

GregMirsky - 1/14/2008 at 23:37


If certain change of the basic stamp design exists in multiple sheets of the stamp - it is a VARIETY.

BTW: it does not need to be on all sheets, multiple sheets are OK too. it even does not need to be in the same position. There are constant varieties that exist but change position from sheet to sheet (or group of sheets to group of sheets).

If it is a "one of the kind" change because of some kind of ink drop, fooldover, etc. - it is EFO.

This is exactly what we are trying to explore here not by declaring it to be this type or that type, but rather asking our readers to do some research...

The whole point of "fly specking" is to determine if certain variation of stamp design is a EFO or CONSTANT VARIETY.

Again (to make it clear) this specific example was posted here to encourage our reqaders to look for:

1. more samples with the same change (to prove that it exists on multiple sheets)


2. other sheets/partial sheets with the same variety in the same position (to prove that this is a plate variety).

Some of the stamps with changed design stay as EFO for many years until sombody will not ran into stack of sheets where it is present....

Gary - 1/15/2008 at 18:07

Understood. Only unused stamps in sheets or partial sheets for location identification are allowed.:) Where they were found (in what Post offices) or how they were used is not important. May the philatelic force be with you.

GregMirsky - 1/15/2008 at 18:56


As a "professional" postal historian I don't think you understood purpose of this specific research and discussion we have here. It is OK, not everybody entitled to be a "Flyspecker" :). .. I usually trying to stay away from discussions about location of post offices, how specific letter travelled, etc., since I don't know much about it. At the same time I am always happy to offer help to researchers of Russian postal history, because it really puzzles me how it is possible to study Russian postal history without knowledge of Russian language and I see many postal history collectors suffering from this.

Now, back to original topic... I always love to find cover with certain variety and I have a number of them in my collection. It is a great joy to find it in the box with regular covers (especially when dealer marks it ONLY as a postal history item :) )...

At the same time the fact that I find this stamp on cover does not really help me in MY SPECIFIC STAMP RESEACH. It does not prove to me if it is a constant variety or EFO. It shows me only that this stamp was postally used, but finding postally used stamp with this variety will accompish exactly the same.

Plate flaws associated with the 70R 'error'

RSFSR - 1/20/2008 at 13:18

There are several plate flaws associated with the 70r 'error'.

Specifically stamps in position 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the block of nine where the 70r stamp is in position 5.

The block attached shows the following:
Position 1 - no flaws
Position 2 - no flaws
Position 3 - indentation in design - top left
Position 4 - two indentations in the top - one towards the left, the other towards the right
Position 8 - 'cigarette' variety

Additional images will follow ...

237a-3 150.jpg - 27kB

RSFSR - 1/20/2008 at 13:38

Position 3 at a higher resolution ... top left corner

237a-3 pos 3.jpg - 17kB

RSFSR - 1/20/2008 at 13:41

Position 4 - two indentations in top frame ...

237a-3 pos 4.jpg - 10kB

RSFSR - 1/20/2008 at 13:44

Position 8 - the 'cigarette' flaw ...

237a-3 pos 8.jpg - 11kB

RSFSR - 1/20/2008 at 13:52

A different block of nine, the top three stamps:

Position 1 - obvious flaw above the top frame
Position 2 - no flaws
Position 3 - no flaws - compare to the previous image of position number 3.

237a-1 pos 1 2 3.jpg - 39kB

RSFSR - 1/20/2008 at 13:55

Another block of nine, top three stamps:

Position 1 - plate flaw shows significant deterioration
Position 2 - now showing an obvious flaw
Position 3 - no frame indentation ...

237a-2 pos 1 2 3.jpg - 40kB

RSFSR - 1/20/2008 at 14:05

Position 4 of the block that shows positions 1-2-3 with the flaw in 1, no flaws in 2 and 3.

Note the deterioration on the indentation at the top right of the frame ...

237a-1 pos 4.jpg - 17kB

GregMirsky - 1/20/2008 at 18:17

Thank you,

This is great.... So, these lines outside of the stamp picture are not a random spots. They show up probably in random positions, on perforate and imperforate stamp, but I really don't know what can cause it. Ideas anyone?

P.S. There is additinal reason to continue digging... For many years in multiple catalogs including Scott and Stanley Gibbons we see listed so called "corrected cliche" variety, but is it really a cliche corrected (replaced) during next printing of sheet with plate #4 of this stamp or it is something else. We started this discussion in Rossica Journal 149 (FlySpecker article), but did not reach any conclusion.

Gary - 1/20/2008 at 18:19

This would be a great idea IF the FlySpecker forum was something more than a one in a blue moon event. Can we make that happen?:question:

GregMirsky - 1/20/2008 at 18:54


Postings in all forums presented on a home page are "blue moon events" in your terms. Sorry to break you this news. The only exception (probably) is a General Forum and mainly because people post there because don't see other forums. If you look at General Forum postings - they all (or majority) belong to one of the existing forums, but because they are not visible - people ask questions in General one.

RSFSR - 1/21/2008 at 19:23

This topic is becoming quite interesting to say the least!!!

Let me suggest something ... what if the corrected cliche variety is actually just a plate flaw that was corrected with the 70R ... so the sequence that we all thought was '70R followed by corrected cliche' is actually 'plate deterioration followed by 70R error'?

What information corroborates this theory?

The stamp in pane position 11 (right of the 70R position) in the pane with plate number 4 is just starting to show the indentation in the left of the top frame. All the examples I have of the block of nine with the 70R error show this top frame line is more deteriorated when compared to the plate 4 pane.

The more examples we have of PN 4 pane and the 70R pane (and the 'corrected cliche' pane), the better we might help to solve this mystery with an unexpected answer!!!

I have attached pane position 11 (block of nine position 4) from the bottom right pane of the sheet with the plate number 4. Similar to the flyspecker artcle in the last Rossica Journal, there is the start of the frame deterioration in the top left ...

I eagerly await responses and thoughts on this revelation!!!

(and even if I am wrong, it sure was fun thinking that I might have discovered something new!!!!)

237 PN4 pos 4.jpg - 17kB

RSFSR - 1/22/2008 at 23:04

The more I think about this, the more inclined I am to believe that the 70R came AFTER the 'corrected' cliche.

Greg, would you be kind enough to send me scans of as many blocks of the nine stamps (pos 6 - 8, 11-13, 16-18) as you have.

If anyone else has similar blocks, could you also send them to me. I will then report back as to what I find out.

600 dpi is optimal.

My email address is

Thank you all in advance.


Duck - 2/10/2008 at 15:28

Has found out such a stamp, last mail, that basically, proves, that stamps with similar mistakes were in the post reference.

Обнаружил такую марку, прошедшую почту, что в принципе, доказывает, что марки с подобными ошибками были в почтовом обращении.

Gary - 2/22/2008 at 18:36

Did this one get lost in the latest Russian catalog?:sniffle:

GregMirsky - 2/23/2008 at 04:18


This variety is not listed in Liapin, Soloviev or Zagorsky (I don't know which one you had in mind). At the same time it is listed (in some form) for many years in Scott and Stanley Gibbons. 100 Rub stamp with extra line outside of the frame listed in Scott as #237b and Stanley Gibbons as#310b.

What we finding now (and this is new information) that these extra lines exist not only in position 12 of the pane (where 70 rub. stamp was located instead of 100 rub.), but also in some other positions and we jointly trying to figure out what technological artefact can cause this.