Fingerprint Imprint on $1 Star Note

An "offset inking error" is aka as bled through.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Which is no explanation at all except the one originally given here being caused by the lines in Washington's coat.

30+ years of collecting and never heard of an offset error that hasn't bled through. Never heard of an offset error that bled through either. I can't tell you how much I appreciate all the new information I learn on these pages.

 

Hey guys, Nos has been a member since 2005. Always a contributor with his comments. Yes, its a far stretch with his opinion, but I don't think it was his own. He was trying to give an opinion of anther collector. Lets give him the courtesy of just challenging the consensus on this one. It shouldn't become the walk of shame. (You Las Vegas visitors know what I mean). :>)

 

I appreciate the support, saltysam. The expert did not respond with his insight into the matter. As such, I felt compelled to at least try and find posts I had previously read from others who have tried to figure out and explain the "fingerprint" in the past. I felt offering the explanation from members on another forum was better than offering no additional explanation or followup at all.

 

I know the imprint is there. I've tried to figure it out before. It is on all the notes. It isn't printed, because there isn't ink included, but is pressed into the paper on the reverse. I believe it is made by a backing plate to press the paper into the face plate so it can pickup the fine details of George's robe. The ink that is sometimes on the reverse in that spot, is bled through, from this pressing. I can easily see the ridges on a couple of new notes I have, but with no ink on them, i can't get a decent photo.

 

https://forums.collectors.com/messa...d=746507&highlight_key=y&keyword1=fingerprint

 

It's a secret!

 

This is a minor offset transfer of the black ink on Washington's coat to the back. Very common.