Posted By:
JoannIt seems to me that there are two choices here.
1) The stamp is an overprint, in which case you have to explain why the red ink in the SC logo does not appear to have the black ink over top.
2) The stamp is an underprint, in which case you have to explain how the black ink managed to migrage down through several layers of paper so that it would still appear as an intact logo even with paper layers peeled away.
To me, no way no how can I comprehend the second one - that somehow the black ink not only got onto the card prior to the SC print during the printing process, but also did so in such a unique way as to penetrate perfectly vertically down through paper. I just can't get past that one.
On the other hand, there are several viable theories as to why the red SC ink would not be blatantly covered with the black stamp. The suggestion above that the black ink simply didn't stick is a good one. Or maybe it is just light and not that obvious.
The only factor supporting underprint is the dominance of the red ink. Everything else screams overprint. It's much easier to mentally accommodate the lack of black-over-red (even without understanding the exact mechanism) than it is to mentally accept the two way wierd things that would have to be true for it to be an underprint (that the stamp got there at all prior to the SC printing, plus penetration through layers).
At least to me.
I vote overprint, with some unknown reason that the black ink did not clearly and fully cover the red ink in areas of overlap.
Joann
Edit for spelling