Jorge,jorgec escribió:I didn't say that the watermark should be disregarded. I said that, even disregarding the watermark, the papers are still completely different.Rein escribió:The terms "blando"and "duro" do not tell us a thing if you do not say anything about the type of watermark involved. It is like saying the paper is "thick" or "thin". Useless descriptions unless complemented.... You can NOT disregard the watermark!
I agree that "blando" and "duro" might be not the better names. But once again, it would be a semantic issue. When I am saying that this stamp exists on both "duro" and "blando", most people involved in the topic know what I am talking about. They know that I didn't mean these words literally, but to actually two types of paper denominated with these terms. They are used as names, and not as adjectives. This is quite common in philately.
it is not a semantic issue, you can use a name within a family when it is a obvious that you are Jorge and I am Rein, but in a larger group with many Jorges in it just the name is of no use... Within the group of various types of paper used for Argentinean stamps, there are several that are matt, several that are coated, a few that are blando or a few that are thick. Using the name "coated" or "blando" will not be helpful to point out to a particular type of paper. Semantics have nothing to do here....