Readers who have been following the exchanges in the comments about datamatrix-coded stamps having a glaring omission will be interested to see these pictures.
There is no doubt that this sheet of stamps exists, with no datamatrix code on the 2nd Large counter sheet.
 |
| Machin 2022 2nd class large counter sheet with no datamatrix code. |
The story is that
"A local post office had these issued and sold some before being recalled."
But then who alerted the administration that recalled them? And were they legitimately acquired (after others had been sold) before others were returned?
 |
| Machin 2022 2nd class large counter sheet with no datamatrix code showing security details. |
 |
| Machin 2022 2nd class large counter sheet with no datamatrix code showing printing date. |
It was, for decades, established practice that faulty stamps were to be returned when discovered, and any posmaster or post office employee who retained any was at risk of dismissal (even though they were paid for).
I'm sure the principle still holds. These stamps will be listed in The Deegam Handbook of British Barcoded Stamps, and mentioned in the next Deegam Report.
Were there any more of these? Are any other errors on Machins lurking - waiting to be revealed?
It was, for decades, established practice that every sheet was checked by the printer, Harrisons of High Wycombe.
ReplyDeleteBut how could such an error, with very nearly a quarter of 'the design' missing from every stamp of a sheet, possibly not be noticed at the depot ( I think was Swindon but now Edinburgh ) that sends the stamps to Post Offices ?
I guess maybe they don't check them anymore?
ReplyDeleteClearly 100% checking is not possible as we have had errors since the first stamp was ever issued. Look at the river wildlife recently with the phosphor error and that was probably a check that could have been automated
ReplyDeleteI see that this blog has made it to a paid for stamp magazine. Is that because members are using the blogs for articles or is this site selling \ giving the informational pictures to the magazine for publication. Eitherway it would have been nice to have been consulted.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell, anonymous, if you read the top of the page you will see that fair use is permitted providing acknowledgement is given, so use by Stamp Magazine would fall into this category (and so would use by the other two magazines or Linn's US).
DeleteWhen Stamp Collecting had a monthly GB column the bulk of it was taken from the blog and then edited by me to bring it up to date before publication. Since that stopped SM has been using information and it is always credited by the editor.
Quote: All basic images of British stamps and postmarks are the Copyright of Royal Mail reproduced here with permission. All enlargements or scans showing particular features are copyright Norvic Philatelics or other collectors. You may quote from the blog or website, if you acknowledge the source, including the original source and any name mentioned in our blog, for images.
Most contributors are aware of this. Where do you think other journalists get their information from?
When a new discovery is made it is always anonymised, and some contributors are specifically consulted as to how much of their information (location etc) they want to be revealed.
Some posts are also linked on X (formerly known as Twitter) (and maybe on Bluesky in the future) and repeated/liked by other readers.
If you have specific concerns please email me as above with a telephone number and name.