by Bob Dumaine A major federal duck stamp error with only one example previously known now has a companion. The stamp, RW26, the 1959 issue featuring a black lab by Maynard Reece, has the back inscription inverted. Forty-four years after issue a second example has been found. The invert error is similar to the famous Inverted Jenny (C3a), much less spectacular, however, much harder to detect. On correct stamps, the inscription should read like a page in a book, meaning that if you are looking at the frontal image upright and turned the stamp as the page of a book, you should be able to read the inscription. If it is upside down, then the inscription is inverted. This newly discovered example has been signed by a hunter and was uncovered by a collector/dealer in the Mid-Atlantic area while sorting through a group of used stamps. A very observant person, this same individual discovered an inverted inscription on an RW22 several years ago. Even considering the discovery of the second example, the RW26a error is of major importance since the owner of the first example has bequeathed it to the Smithsonian National Postal Museum. Collectors and treasure hunters would be wise to continue to look for such examples. 1971 and 1986 Varieties Found Another interesting variety has come to light. Again, a Maynard Reece stamp, RW38, the 1971 federal stamp was found with a 3mm+ litho color shift. Notice the left movement of the yellow base color on the right side and the white space behind the ducks. This is the largest shift on this stamp I’ve seen, but since there were printed in sheets of 120, perhaps more are lurking in dark closets or albums. Another enigma stamp was found with a shift on the front and reverse. RW53, the 1986 federal stamp has the intaglio shifted on the face, creating white image under the beak, and eyes out of their socket. The reverse offset has two clear sets of inscriptions, one slightly lighter than the other. The stamp has a certificate from the P.S.E. stating the reverse doubling is due to a “kiss print” and not double printed or double impression. For sure, I was and still am confused by the terminology. Anyone can see the stamp has two impressions, so if not double printed, was it almost double printed? I feel if the printing process results in something appearing twice on a stamp, then it’s double printed. Complicating the obvious is for politicians, lawyers, and the house of mirrors. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but I have not been able to find a philatelic definition of “kiss print.” I’ve heard the expression and seen it in print for years, but never been the victim of a kiss- print before. Fact is, it was indeed printed, because there it is on the stamp, and it was not a cheap pickup from another stamp. Can any of the philatelic scholars out there point me to a philatelic definition of a “kiss print?”