February 21, 2006

This is a review of the recent article on stamp paper, part I appearing in the January 2006 edition of the United States Specialist. The work, by Edward M. Liston, is titled "The 'China Clay' Variety of the 1908-1910 Washington Franklin Issue?" (Above: Item from the writer's exhibit on papermaking postal history)

Before we start, since this is my 1st review ever on this blog, allow me to declare what my criteria is for articles on philatelic paper. A good paper article must be all things paper and philatelic. To begin; there should be a chronology of philatelic opinions, how we reached the current state of affairs & etc.. Second, the writer should present new source material or documentation. There should be some discussion about the printer and the printing process, but most importantly, show us relevant stamps and/or covers. On the paper history side; a basic review of the industry at large, especially for 19th and early 20th Centuries papers where the industry was changing so rapidly. A further discussion of operations of the mill where the paper was made is essential. The paper mill is the well spring of knowledge for which there is no substitute. Any article on paper not including this basic fact is deemed  suspect. Finally, the writer should provide competent technical analysis of both printing methodology and paper selection criteria.

In the China paper affair the writer, Mr. Liston, takes on a formidable subject. All the low hanging fruit has been picked long ago, and advancement comes now only after exhaustive research. This article presents the reader with volumes of technical analysis, but is less than engaging in the presentation of stamps. If the goal is to get philatelists to abandon the China clay variety, the writer must do more than provide charts, graphs, and microscopic photos. Pictures of covers or stamps is the best way to win support for the cause. Collectors need to see what they've been collecting all these years, and catalog makers need some cover should they choose to change their listing practices.

The subject of china clay's and blue papers have been with us for nearly a century.  There now have been so many published articles that it becomes difficult to know what to believe. A recent work appearing in the American Philatelist had this collector believing that the blue papers were really a variety of china clay, and China clay was a variety of rag paper! So, let us proceed more carefully at this juncture.

From a history perspective, the bulk of the US paper industry in the early 20th Century was into making ground wood pulp paper. This is a "mechanical" wood pulp paper, not the "chemical" wood pulp paper found in the post WW I era.  Since this paper could be had from almost any source, the Government had put the stamp contract out for bid on several occasions looking for the best price. Such a contract was a fixed price affair, and that could be the death sentence of a paper mill owner who did not accurately calculate his cost of goods sold. The Government, for it's part, also needed to be vigilant since contractors worked every angle to increase their bottom line.

Mr. Liston discusses philatelic events leading to current catalog criteria. Apparently Mekeel's Weekly reported on a government's trial of bluish paper, and a typo in some official correspondence led collectors to believe that a thin paper variety of 2% filler material was actually an experimental paper having 20 percent China clay. Mr. Liston correctly reports that such a quantity of clay in the paper is an impossibility. Nevertheless, when blue papers eventually received catalog consideration, a note was appended regarding the production of experimental China clay papers.

The US Specialist article now trails off into a discussion about how the experts, Roy White, Philatelic Foundation, et. al, experienced trouble with the expertization of the China clay variety. This is followed by a discussion of X-ray diffraction techniques, which otherwise worked so well in the identification of blue papers. The author goes on to describe his own experiments in density and opacity in an effort to help cull the China clays from the run of the mill stamp papers.

What in the heck is China clay paper anyway? It is known that Zenus Crane of Dalton MA used clay in his handmade paper of as early as 1810. Apparently, as papermakers began switching from linen to cotton fibers in the late 18th Century they found the paper lacked certain qualities of hardness. Adding a little clay (1-2%)  to the pulp during beating seemed to solve this problem. Clay made the paper more opaque (not so transparent) and gave it smoothness that enhanced it's writing and printing qualities. China clay is just bone colored variety of paper clay that happened to be popular in the early 20th Century.

Part 2 of the above article appears in the February 2006 edition of the US Specialist, and Mr. Edward Liston now introduces his microscopic evidence. Supposedly this evidence led the author to believe the paper contained dirt or silt that caused it's color to change from white to gray, or what he calls 'dirty normal.'

The article now turns to the paper mill(s) supplying the paper to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). One of the suppliers was the Champion Coated Paper Co. of Hamilton, Butler Co., Ohio. Champion made coated paper for lithograph and cardboard. We are informed that from Government documents Champion had difficulty producing a paper of sufficient opacity (translucence). Champion  attempted to compensate by making the paper a bit thicker. The Government still rejected the product, but Mr. Liston thinks that as the BEP was down to only 3 days stock of paper, chances are good that this paper came to production as a stopgap measure. Further, the author proposes that the Champion paper might be what misled experts at the Philatelic Foundation into believing it was the China clay variety.

As it happened the main supplier of stamp paper to the BEP was the Eastern Manufacturing Co..  Post's Paper Mill Directory of 1906 reports that Eastern operated two mills; a pulp mill and a paper mill, both located in the town of South Brewer in Penobscot Co., Maine. The pulp mill had several wood grinding stones as well as wet processing machines. Here was made bleached or unbleached sulphite fiber. The paper mill contained three shaking-wire paper machines of greater than 100" width. Eastern advertised the making of 'tub sized' fine writing paper. Tub sizing is otherwise known as 'in-beater' sizing, a method of sizing paper in pulp form as opposed to the old method of brushing animal sizing onto finished paper.

After reviewing some 82 letters between the BEP and Eastern, Mr. Liston found one that referred to a slow down in production due to low river flows in wintertime. The author then looked at monthly mean flow records of the Piscataquis River, and after communicating with a long time employee of the mill, he found the river was also subject to storm tides. The author now advances a theory that during low flow periods the "silt would have darkened the paper ... therefore I believe that the 'experimental' dark paper that ... was used to print the 'China Clay' stamps ... was just normal paper manufactured during a period when there was muddy water at the mill."

Remarkably, Mr. Liston concludes from his X-ray and Density experiments that there is no evidence of filler materials! As such he declares there was no such thing as a China Clay variety!! Such an observation seems highly improbable given the manufacturer's disposition to tub sizing, and of course there are those published statements by the 3d Asst. PMG in their annual report on the subject of China clay.

In his microscopic examination Mr. Listion finds silt, or dirt, imbedded in the fibers of the paper. He also notes the occasional black specks. Such black speck's are typically the result of soot from oil lamps or coal-burning stoves in manufacturing areas. As for the question of silting during low flows, the Piscataquis River mill had three Fourdrinier machines, and papermakers typically preferred the smooth power delivery of waterwheels or water turbines for their shaking-wire machine. Post's directory gives no clue as to how the paper machines were powered, but if Eastern is reporting production declines due to low flows, chances are the mill was water powered.

As such, the paper machines at a water-powered mill could not be run if there were low river flows in winter. So, the author's silt theory now rests on the activities at the pulp mill. Sources of clean water were always a problem for papermakers, especially those making fine white paper. Pulping preceded papermaking, and so pulp was ususally kept in storage until it could be used. Whether pulp was produced during low flow or muddy conditions is hard to say. The grinders could have been powered by steam engine(s), but Post's directory does not give us this detail. Still, it seems highly unlikely that a competent engineer would risk his job by producing fine bleached white pulp using muddy water. It may be that the storage of the pulp could have introduced contaminants such as dirt or rust. If such contaminants came from storage facilities, then dirty paper might appear at anytime, not just during storm, or low flow periods. It would be a fallacy to attempt to tie dated covers to low flow periods, but the author purports to have such covers, although he declines to publish them for our benefit.

In the final analysis, the article says that BEP may have used Champion's paper for a short duration,  so when Mr. Liston could not find china clay in the paper he should have considered Champion because Eastern clearly defines their paper otherwise. Mr. Liston proposes a dirty paper theory, but after convincing himself to look at Eastern, he concludes by saying there's no telling if Champion or Eastern is responsible! One can only wonder why such an article was published in the first place if it can't come to a rational conclusion. All the evidence clearly points to Champion, but because Mr. Liston couldn't pick the formerly expertised reference copies out of a pile of the regular issue he gives up.

So, the question remains: Shall the catalog drop the experimental paper variety because experts can't identify it, or should they simply drop the 'China clay' tag on the basis of Mr. Liston's findings? In a commentary to the article, Mr. Larry Weiss looks forward to the dropping the experimental paper listing because he couldn't identify it either. These experts, however, have only found that it's easier to disprove a positive, than to prove a negative.

The common collector must be confused by this mess of research. Collectors must not be misled by either the 'china clay' or the 'dirty paper' tags. Experimental papers are always going to be a problem for experts, so just continue to look for variations in the 1908-1909 papers. Measure each stamp thickness with a digital caliper, and look for obvious differences in opacity. The answer can only come from a carefully conducted paper study performed by a dedicated students of paper history. The scientific approach has run it's course.

-a