Mr. Cole. They are offset about one-quarter to one-half the height of a typewritten character.
Mr. Eisenberg. From each other?
Mr. Cole. That is right, vertically.
Mr. Eisenberg. Is it accurate to say then that there is a progression upward as comparing the typewritten name and the two stenciled operations, or at least that the three are set in step, so that each one is below the next impression?
Mr. Cole. That is correct, with the visible typewriting having the better position relative to the reproduction of the printed matter.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you think of the reason why this might have been, why this operation might have been performed in this manner, Mr. Cole?
Mr. Cole. Yes. It could easily result from some difficulty of finding the correct place for typewriting the name on the card. The lowermost indentation would have been an incorrect position since it was run into a part of the reproduction of the printed matter.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, I refer back to 798, which is a highlight photograph of the selective service card, and ask you whether the stenciled material in 798 appears above the line on which the typewritten material—first name, middle name, and last name—should appear?
Mr. Cole. Yes; somewhat above.
Mr. Eisenberg. In light of that, do you think it is possible that the individual who prepared this card used the stencil to determine at what point the typewriting would be placed so that it was in the correct position in relationship to the line above which it belonged?