NVPH number 1489x, do you have this stamp?
The 80-cent Beatrix stamp in the color orange-brown is included in the Special Catalogue of the NVPH with the special feature: variety, plain paper. Only the stamps in sheets of 200 pieces, not the double-sided perforated stamps that were available on rolls, nor the stamps in the stamp booklets. So, only the stamps that are perforated on all four sides.
Further information is missing! But why was this stamp issued on ordinary paper and not on the usual phosphor paper? This stamp was briefly mentioned on the blog in July 2006, but there was no further response. A mistake was made at the printing plant of Joh. Enschedé & Zonen in Haarlem on March 7, 1996. By accident, the 80-cent Beatrix stamps were printed on paper intended for an issue from another country. Two rolls of paper were used. The printed run was transferred to the PTT Post warehouse in Haarlem until they were needed for distribution to the post offices. And by the end of May 1996, the time had come. The stock was used and sent to the post offices that had ordered the stamps in this denomination. No one noticed anything until the alarm was raised in early June: the machines supposed to sort the mail failed to detect the stamp affixed to letters and cards. An investigation into the cause was immediately launched, and it emerged that the stamps had been printed on ordinary paper. The issued supplies had to be returned immediately by the post offices to Haarlem. But how did they know which stamps were correct and which were not?
From the stock still present in Haarlem, it could be deduced that it concerned the production of March 7, 1996. The printing date and a series of numbers were applied to the margins of the sheet by the printing office. In this way, a distinguishing mark was assigned to each sheet, and by means of this mark, post office employees could see which stamps needed to be returned. Naturally, one could also use a phosphor lamp to see that the stamps did not glow phosphorescently on ordinary paper. However, not every post office had such a lamp.
From the production data, it could be deduced that, broadly speaking, the sheets with the number series 07-MAR-96 9991/000 165 000 and 07-MAR-96 9991/000 210 000 were printed on the wrong paper. And the collectors? They could not turn to the Collectclub in Groningen: it had no stock! So people had to go out and acquire this stamp themselves. Have you managed to add this stamp to your collection? Or have you affixed a piece of mail with this stamp on it with a postmark date of early June 1996? I am curious! 
Addition:
Of the Queen Beatrix stamp, inversion type, with the value ƒ 0,80 (NVPH 1489), approximately 3.600.000 stamps were mistakenly printed on plain paper and urgently withdrawn from sale by PTT Post on June 7, 1996. This is according to a statement from PTT Post. The printing date of the “erroneous” stamps is March 7, 1996, and the serial numbers are, again according to PTT Post, 9991/000168000 to 9991/000189000. The plate numbers are L 1 L 5. This amounts to 21.000 sheets, or 4.200.000 stamps. The stamps were printed in sheets of 200. Whether these serial numbers provided by PTT Post are complete remains to be seen. It appears, for example, after investigation, that the sheets with serial numbers 9991/000100907 and 9991/000214223, both with a print date of March 7, 1996, were also printed on ordinary paper without a phosphorescent layer. On June 13, 1996, in the course of the afternoon, PTT Post urgently withdrew Beatrix stamps from the market once again via a telephone call to post offices, specifically the sheets with serial numbers 9991/000165000 through 9991/000210000, or a total of 45.000 sheets containing 9.000.000 stamps, with a print date of March 7, 1996. This is an increase in the quantity of stamps withdrawn from the market on June 7, 1996. Consequently, many more were printed on “incorrect” paper than PTT Post initially indicated and is willing to admit. A telephone inquiry on Friday, June 14, 1996, to KPN Media Relations in The Hague yielded the statement “that PTT Post never publishes such data”.
Supplement (2)
After the “incorrect” Beatrix stamps of ƒ 0,80 were withdrawn from circulation by PTT Post on June 7 and 13, 1996, PTT put an old stock, apparently still on the shelf, up for sale as a replacement. Sheets have been spotted which were produced on November 24, 1994, with plate numbers R 1 R 4 (see, among others, sheet number 7603/000264820), printed on phosphorescent paper.
In September 1995, plate numbers L 2 L 5 were observed. If one compares this with the plate numbers of the “erroneous” Beatrix stamps, L 1 L 5 and R 1 R 5, it appears that the “old” plate number L/R 1 was taken off the shelf again for the printing dates of March 6 and 7, 1996. One can only guess at the reason for this.
At PTT Post, even more went wrong on June 7, 1996, and the following days. After the "faulty" Beatrix stamps were recalled on that day, new Beatrix stamps were delivered to post offices to replace the returned ones. As has only recently become known, "faulty" stamps were delivered by PTT Post once again at that time. This explains the second (telephone) recall on June 13. "Normally, a donkey only stumbles over the same stone once."
It is not yet possible to determine with certainty how many of these “ordinary” stamps have been put into circulation. What is certain, however, is that this ƒ 0,80 stamp will likely become a sought-after collector's item. In a newspaper advertisement dated June 13, 1996, the stamp was already being offered for sale by a stamp dealer from 's-Hertogenbosch for ƒ 30,00 each. It appears that the speculative frenzy has erupted in full force. A more realistic price, however, seems to lie around ƒ 6,00 each.
At PTT Post Verzamelservice in Groningen, it appeared that they had already received several telephone orders on June 7, 1996, partly because news of the “faulty” stamp had been disseminated via the radio news service and NOS Teletext. However, the PTT could not fulfill this request, as the stamps had been taken out of circulation and returned. Nowadays, the stamp stock at post offices is registered and deregistered using a computer code, ensuring that the stock at the various post offices is kept reasonably “up to date.” Upon receipt of new stamps at the post office, the stock is registered via this system, and deregistered in the event of returns and sales. In this way, the PTT always knows approximately how many and which stamps are present at the various post offices.
'@Cees
It has happened before that Joh. Enschedé prints Dutch stamps on paper intended for another country. In 1985, a quarter of the Summer stamp booklets were printed on paper intended for Australia – in 1982, JOHEZ had printed stamp booklets for that country. I reported this to the head of the printing department at the time, who called me back later to tell me that my assumption was correct…
This paper also caused problems for postal mechanization, but PTT never reacted as vehemently to it. The stamps are easily recognizable by the UV reaction of pink/red instead of white/yellow.
The NVPH acts as if nothing is wrong.
Why are these stamps included on paper intended for Hong Kong stamps????
I bought this stamp from a dealer about 3 years ago for 4 euros. That dealer bought the stamps himself at the post office in Nijmegen.
I remember that this stamp cost 15 to 20 guilders on the market at the time.
I did indeed see the mention in the catalog and briefly held the UV lamp over the pile of 80-cent stamps.
Three pieces emerged from the stack that indeed had a legible stamp from early 1996.
I have a sheet of 48 of these stamps. So, still completely intact with the numbered border. Where could I get them appraised? I also have a sheet of the 1G Beatrix stamp in the color Purple.
Would like to hear!
Regards,
vanes
I have 2 sheets of 100