Paper types in the NVPH catalogue?
On August 12, there was on the Stamp Blog responded in response to the Zoetermeer stamp featuring a discussion about the new NVPH catalogue with the sigh: when will the NVPH Now finally the different paper types listed in the Special Catalogue! It was literally written: Think of, for example: … the Cour stamps on special paper….
The so-called 'history cards' accompanying the delivery of stamps by the printer offered for this purpose. Joh. Enschedé and maintained by the Stamp Value Service in Haarlem, outcome. The first 2-cent and 4-cent stamps were delivered in February and August 1951. They were printed on plate paper, just like the 5-cent delivered in July 1953. That plate paper is very dull and somewhat grey in tint. At that time, the first print run of the 3-cent was also delivered on the same paper.
A reprint took place in November 1971 for the 2 cent and the 3 cent, but on a different type of paper: professional intaglio paper, which was slightly 'fresher' than the dull plate paper, allowing the print to come into its own better. So, a different type of paper, and that is clearly visible. This is even more evident under a phosphor lamp, where the professional paper lights up. But in 1974, for the reprint of the 2 cent, the 4 cent, and the 5 cent, a completely different type of paper was used, in which a 'whitening agent' was incorporated: violino paper. And that caused the confusion. In 1962, a series of three stamps had been issued of 4 cent, 8 cent, and 12 cent, printed on fluorescent paper for a test in Gouda using a deposition/stamping machine. This machine could 'detect' and stamp the stamp based on the fluorine in it.
Were the Courzegels printed on the same paper? No. This has also been investigated by the TNO Fiber InstituteThe wavelength of the whitening agent in the so-called coating of the paper used for the Courzegels was very different from that of the fluorescent stamps. In a statement, the then PTT indicated that the addition of fluorescent to the coating of the stamp paper was not done for postal reasons regarding the detection of the stamp, but solely to increase the whiteness of the paper.
The same paper was used for the three Courzegels issued in 1977: 40, 45, and 50 cents, so also violino paper. What do you expect from the NVPH Special Catalogue? That the catalogue committee includes all paper types used for the stamps? So, three types for the 2-cent, 4-cent, and 5-cent Courzegels, two types for the 3-cent stamp, and one type for the 40, 45, and 50-cent values.
And what about the other stamps in the Courzegels series? The 6 and 7 cents featuring the Peace Palace were printed only on plate paper. For the 6 cent, an order was initially placed for a reprint on violino paper, but this order was withdrawn.
The use of plate printing paper also applies to the series of Courzegels featuring an image of HM Queen Juliana from 6 cents up to and including 1 guilder. You can now supplement the catalogue yourself if you wish! However, please include the correct paper types and *no* fluorescent paper, as in the advertisement from that time. 
'@Cees
You know perfectly well what I wrote during that period and how I feel about it!
Fluorescence is fluorescence and not a monopoly word of a postal service!
The white fluorescent paper types used since 1961 [Gelders Machine Coated and Violino] constitute a distinctly different paper type than before 1961 and deserve a place in a self-respecting catalogue. There is nothing wrong with that designation, and we do not need research from TNO for that either. The Netherlands has a large number of stamps on white fluorescent paper [the Kinderzegels of 1961 were the first] and only 3 stamps on yellow fluorescent paper [Gouda 4, 8 and 12c].
The PTT's monopolization of the term 'fluorine' is completely unjustified, and it is a good thing to shout that from the rooftops! Whitening agents produce white fluorescence! Neither PTT, TPG, nor TNT can do anything about that; it is determined by strict physics!
The reason the NVPH does not want to include the Cour stamps is due to the presence of the largest stock of those stamps in the hands of dealer Auke de Vries – clearly petty jealousy within the NVPH that nearly led to Auke's expulsion, because he did not tolerate the behavior of the NVPH board.
The final conclusion of your story makes absolutely no sense. Cees, you should know better!
‘@Rein
Ah Rein, you didn't write an extensive story about it in Philatelie for the first time until 1979. Auke also had a full-page advertisement in Philatelie back then.
We might as well drop the distinction between the Juliana and Profil stamps now as well.
What is the point of publishing a Special Catalogue?
Perforations, watermarks, printing techniques, ink types, plate numbers, stamps, etc., etc.
Absolutely pointless to distinguish all of that.
'@jaap
Back then, around 1980, the NVPH and the NBFV were still somewhat sparring partners for PTT, and they really had to pander to each other… I was actually told by PTT at the time that they fully supported the NVPH’s position and that what Auke was putting forward was pure nonsense….
Why is Cees bringing up this prehistoric point of view again???
Yeah, yeah, that’s how you keep the people ignorant! Do in Rome as the Romans do! Or rather: More Catholic than the Pope; Also known as: crazy guys, those Romans….
'@Jaap
Take a country catalogue of a reasonable level: Stanley Gibbons for the United Kingdom or Michel for Germany, and you will see what kind of information is passed on to the collector.
The Netherlands is lagging 40-50 years behind – the last thorough revision and expansion of the SC was carried out in the 70s at the urging of the National Documentation Centre [the 3 Janns: Dekker, Giphart, and van Hal]; since then, things have remained stagnant and decisions have been made ad hoc / haphazardly, each one more absurd than the last, leaving collectors of Dutch stamps from the last 40 years deprived of sound information. The other “players” in organized philately feel perfectly at home in this status quo. This has repercussions on all fronts – collections of modern Dutch stamps on display cannot be properly judged because the jury lacks expertise and does not want to look beyond its own nose [read: the SC].
Asking semi-rhetorical questions about what should be included in the SC is asking for the maintenance of the status quo...
I think they just took whatever paper was available at the time or whatever needed to be cleared out again. After all, it was just for a “limited” edition for the Peace Palace. And for album page makers, that information isn't interesting anyway.
@Cees, quite a nice piece of research work after all!
Then here, for the sake of clarity, are the print runs per stamp:
1971
2 cents 87.000 pieces
3 cents 182.200 pieces
1974
2 cent 79.000 stukst
4 cent 71.200 stukst
5 cents 74.200 pieces
This information has only been known since 1977 (or earlier).
'@Tone
No research whatsoever! Everything had already been published by Dick Hille Ris Lambers and yours truly!
Not just any paper, but paper that was common at the time and met the quality requirements set by PTT as well.
Apart from that, it most likely did not concern stamps that the Court itself needed—such low nominal values for postage?? – but rather demand from the stamp trade or parcel manufacturers who were short of many stamps for little money. Not only Dutch stamps but also penny stamps from overseas were reprinted at that time.
If Cees ever dives into the PTT archives to figure that out – where did the orders come from??? – then we’ll really be talking about “research work”!
'@Tone
And for album page makers, that data isn't interesting anyway.
Since when has philately been ruled by album makers????
And do purebred philatelists put up with that???
Then they aren't worth a dime!
The print run details are listed on a pre-printed album page produced by Schaubeck.
Now listed in the new 2013 edition of the NVPH catalogue: “A breakdown by paper type for the service stamps D27-D30”, also known as Cour stamps.
Tribute
(source NVPH website, the descriptive text accompanying the release of the latest edition of the catalogue)
Paul,
More than 40 years later and more than 25 years after the first publications, the NVPH is giving in!
You would almost think that Auke de Vries is a thing of the past! Who was it again who said “over my dead body”.....
What is labeled paper? And unlabeled paper.
(Stamps). Ok, thanks.