We have known for decades that the self-adhesive stamps on Royal Mail-supplied first day covers come from a different printing to those sold mint to collectors. We found this in 2004 when this cover with a paper-join on the 2003 Christmas stamp set demonstrated that the stamps were printed on the same 'sheet', or as was later explained, coil.
 |
| Red transparent adhesive tape marking a paper join on a continuous set of Ice Sculpture 2003 Christmas stamps, on Royal Mail first day cover. |
Specialists soon determined that because these were coils, they were printed sideways on the web, rather than upright as on ordinary counter sheets.
So those same specialists wanted to buy both the mint stamps and the first day covers (uncancelled if possible), to make their collections 'complete'.
But most collectors don't care about 'direction of print' and settle for just one stamp/set.
Of course last year when a production error produced a totally different 1st class Wales barcoded stamp even the collectors who didn't care about direction of print wanted one of those!
So what do you make of the latest surprise? My thanks to RB & JG for alerting me to this development.
The low value and high value King Charles III definitives were issued today (29 August), and collectors who buy first day covers from Royal Mail found a BIG surprise - can you see it in these images?
2p and £2 King Charles III definitives.
As is immediately obvious from these pictures the lower stamps have, as you would expect, the security features that we have known in definitives since 2009. But these are markedly missing from the stamps used on the first day covers!
So, to address the title of this post, is this
- a serious error by Royal Mail or the printers (ISP Walsall);
- ignorance as to what matters to collectors;
- a deliberate production of a variety in the hope that more collectors will want to buy them, even used/on cover?
Whichever of these is the reason, it marks yet another new low in Royal Mail's relationship with its customers.
Do you know if there's any code on it ... or just MAIL/M23L?
ReplyDeleteCould it indicate that the (coil?) is gummed?
Have sheet code M23L MAIL and are self adhesive. Printer forgot the Security Slits....one less process for counterfeiters
DeleteFirst Day Covers no longer on Royal Mail website... plenty on eBay
ReplyDeleteThat will be because the day of issue is past.
DeleteWhy do barcoded stamps still have the annoying "security feature", which can tear off and challenges you to put it back in so neatly that the system won't flag it up? I thought that one of the reasons for introducing the barcode was that it would prevent re-use of stamps.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting question.
DeleteBarcodes won't prevent the re-use of stamps if the public don't know that reused unfranked barcoded stamps might be scanned with the recipient paying a surcharge and by and large the public don't know that.
Delete"A deliberate production of a variety in the hope that more collectors will want to buy them, even used/on cover" would seem most likely, although it could, like the single band First Class riverside wildlife stamps, be carelessness by Royal Mail in specifying what's required or carelessness by the printer with quality control.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reading what Hanns (Deegam) has to say about this in his next Deegam Report.
ReplyDeleteI think its very strange to suggest that RM would go to the trouble of manufacturing this "error" deliberately. Most unlikely.
ReplyDeleteWhat is much more likely in my opinion is plain and simple lack of attention to detail, I'm finding this is increasingly common in all aspects of society now especially in people under 40. There are more and more errors in everyday things generally, not just stamps.
In response to a complaint made to RM re the missing security strips RM State: "I can confirm that there has been no error in the stamps used for our First Day Covers. As the stamps on a First Day Cover are not for use, they are produced using stamps from a coil that do not have the elliptical security markings."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I don't believe for one minute that it is not an error by RM.
DeleteWHat a fatuous response! If the FDC stamps are not for use then why do the stamps have elliptical perforations? And why have previous definitive FDCs had the security markings? The response displays a lack of respect for their customers.
Delete2012 Olympics missing phosphor, 2018Tarriff different size Slits, 2022 Wales 1st font error and now 2023 Definitive security slits omitted adds some interest to the collection and certainly a lot more intriguing than the trashy collectables Royal Mail churn out.
ReplyDeleteIf they are not for use but look like real stamps is Royal Mail now in the business of producing “fake” or “ facsimile” versions of its own stamps. At least the PO’s producing CTO’s for stamp packets used actual real printed stamps- and we as stamp collectors used to disparage these countries.
DeleteI'm sure it's an error too, and it's strange that they simply are brushing it off. I don't collect FDCs anymore, but thanks to this article managed to order one of each on the RM website before the first day ended (thank you). They've arrived and it's clear to me they're an error in the same way the Wales 1st font was, and indeed the recent 1st class River Wildlife.
ReplyDelete