Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
You said that the stamp is unwatermarked. It looks like a Type VI, making it a #534A, offset printing. I base that on the shading dots on the nose, and it appears that the line of color on the left "2" is heavy.
One problem with the stamp is that the cancellation is over some of the key ID elements for the different types.
Regarding value, people collect them. It's worth a little, but not much.
Login to Like
this post
nl1947,
I am no expert by any means, but first you stamp cannot be a 344 or 384. The design is different. (See the bottom denomination). Your stamp is either a 532, 533, 534, 534A or 534B. Based on your scan I can eliminate type Va (maybe), VI and VII. That would eliminate the 534. 534A and 534B, leaving only the 532 and 533. Count the number of shading dots in the 3rd horizontal row above the nostril. If it has 6 dots then it is a type IV or type V. But more is needed. I would need a clearer view of the toga button to determine if type IV or V. I am a little confused however because I see only one vertical shading line in the ribbon's curve over the 2 at the inner curve on the right above the number 2. None of the mentioned Scott numbers above have only 1 line, they should have 2. Maybe someone with more knowledge and a keener eye can shed some light.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
Mel, I think it's a type VI. The dots on the nose are aligned, and it looks like the color bar on the left "2" is heavy. The line on the "2" on a Type IV and V is weak.
There's not much else to go on, because of the cancel covering up the details.
Login to Like
this post
Thank you
From my limited experience with US stamps, the 1847US site did lead me to believe it is a Type VI.
The cancellation blocks the toga & medallion that were important to ID it.
Some items as mbo1142 mentions were confusing
Login to Like
this post
Thanks for the challenge. That wasn't an easy one.
Login to Like
this post
Again based on 1847USA, I think this is a type III.
Perf 11, frame 19.5 x22
2 lines in scroll & v in ornament
Is it a 546?
Login to Like
this post
nl1947
Hi All
What does the reverse side of your stamp in question look like. Does it have offset ink?
Basic identification tells you a rotatory stamp will not have any ink on the reverse, flat plate printed stamps 99.9% will show some ink on the reverse (in reverse orientation).
DAVID THOMPSON
MSGT/USAF/RETIRED
Login to Like
this post
Michael,
I agree that the upper line of base of the left number 2 may be thicker, hard to tell from the scan. I eliminated the VI based on the number of dots in the third row above the nostril. If not mistaken, the VI only has 4 dots (hard to tell from the scan). If there are 6 dots, then it must be a IV or V. You are correct some of the identifiers are covered by the post mark. I would need to have better scan of those particular areas to make a better guess.
What do you think re only one vertical shading line in the ribbon's curve over the 2 at the inner curve on the right above the number 2?
I also agree with USAFE7, regarding the offset ink on the second scan.
Are we having fun yet?
Mel
Login to Like
this post
"What do you think re only one vertical shading line in the ribbon's curve over the 2 at the inner curve on the right above the number 2? "
Other types have that characteristic as well, so I didn't pay that much attention to it.
nl, the Washington/Franklins are the nightmares of many US collectors. These stamps really turned out to be experiments for the post office. They tried different printing techniques (rotary, flat plate and offset), perforations (I won't list all of them), watermarked paper, un-watermarked paper, paper types and colors, different die types (everyone's favorite), coils, private coils, imperfs. Did I leave anything out? Anyway, the results of the experiments are seen in the 1922 definitive set.
To help narrow the search down, it will help us to know if you spotted a watermark or not, and if yes, then what kind. Perforations definitely and printing type.
Of course, when you get that far, you just about have it pegged. Yes, it is best not to work for lengthy amounts of time on these issues. A little at a time, or else you'll go crazy and wind up lining the walls of your rooms with them.
Login to Like
this post
Here is an image of an item that if you ever run across it, buy it.
They are long out of production, and very hard to find. They show up in box lots and in old dealer supply stock. They are worth their weight in gold and will help you figure out the Washington/Franklin stamps.
I have had mine for many years. I got it out of an auction stamp supply box lot.
If anyone wants to buy it from me, I'll trade you for a British Guiana Scott #13. If you don't have the stamp, then send me a cashier's check for the 2015 catalog value of the stamp. That's how much I value this tool.
Login to Like
this post
Regarding the last scan - not a hint of a watermark.
Talk about minor differences - I collect Brazil
14 different watermarks on the same set of definitives over a 30 year period and they put one in with no watermark to make it interesting.
As for the reverse of the 2nd scan - seems to have a reddish bleed?
Login to Like
this post
Brazil definitives are another one of those philatelic "hells" that many have to suffer through. Argentina has its share too, as does China, and others.
Login to Like
this post
Hi All
michael78651
Reference: The Easy Way U.S. Stamp Identifier.
It seem strange, but it's true, when I was working with the Washington Franklin head stamps there wasn't any U. S. stamp Identifiers around. Had to memorize everything about them. Worked out a system of Pick Up Points (PUP). Memorized all the perf combos and the basics of identification. Worked out a way to determine the perf gauge without a perf gauge. All this came in very handy when going to a stamp bid board, especially if you could not examine the stamp in question, other than just looking at it. Of course you could not watermark a stamp, so that did not work. Picked up many identified incorrectly, like 499's that were really 500. I still use the system I memorized way back in the 50's. Just picked up from EBay an RE31 perf 11 that was listed as RE20. Some time ago picked up a RE107D that was listed as RE59.
I encourage everybody to memorize the basic stamp identification and not depend of these identifiers. Sure when you are at home and have stamps in front of your that you can examine use your identifier.
DAVID THOMPSON
MSGT/USAF/RETIRED
Login to Like
this post
Eating humble pie.
The older I get the more my mouth talks before my eyes and brain start to work together. My mistake in earlier post re the dots on the nose. The Type VI should have the 6 dots and not the 4 as I mentioned. Therefore, I promise that from now on I will read and read before making comments.
In my defense, I did say that there were others with more knowledge and keener eye sight than me.
Login to Like
this post
Mel, John Hotchner has been writing a series of articles for Linns about how the expertization process works. Basically it begins when someone sends a stamp in for identification. Then several "experts" look at the stamp and offer their opinions. The discussion continues, not unlike how it happens online here where the people trying to make the ID go back and forth, and then settle (usually) on what they believe to be the right call.
The discussion that ensues to try to help someone ID a stamp helps everyone learn how to ID stamps, even those participating in the discussion. I rechecked the image based on what you posted in case I missed something. The cancel makes it tough to ID.
Login to Like
this post
Great discussion all. As one who is only recently re-entering the stamp world, and who is moving from my youth-friendly Harris Liberty album to the more serious Scott National, I need to learn more of this.
Thank you Mel for the hobby-explaining meticulously-precise quote of the day:
"Count the number of shading dots in the 3rd horizontal row above the nostril. If it has 6 dots then it is a type IV or type V."
I can see I need to invest in a better magnifying glass!
Michael, will the center portion of your identifier pull out? If so, we could create some quality facsimiles as a unique SOR product. If there are copyright issues (always seem to be), perhaps we could design our own using that one as a reference?
-Steve
Login to Like
this post
Steve, I only scanned in one side. There are more identifiers on the other side. There is a two-sided sleeve that slides back and forth like a slide-rule (now how many know about slide rules?).
Login to Like
this post
I do know about slide rules, having attended high school in the transition period from slide rules to calculators. Our physics teacher required us to show proficiency in the slide rule before he would allow us to use calculators in class. 
In your device, does the center part slide all the way out. That is, could we make high-res scans of all of the printed surfaces?
-Steve
Login to Like
this post
Steve, the device does show a copyright, and the company that made it is still in business today. I have contacted them about the identifier. I'll let you know what they say when I hear back from them.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks, Michael. In the meantime, I have "more than plenty" of other resources to dig into from my beginner-level perch here!
-Steve
Login to Like
this post
Hi Everyone;
I well remember slide rules. I had to purchase from the DeVry Institute of Technology
bookstore, the infamous 'Versalog' slide rule. Its 20+ scales on both of its sides. All
the Trig and Log scales took a good bit of time to master.
In those days the only calculators available were Texas Instruments, with the little
tiny red LEDs that were very hard to see. The only model TI had that would do every-
thing that the Versalog could do, was retailing for US$400+.
The metaphor of a slide-rule is a great idea. Instead of just copying someone else,
why not be original and make a better one as a software application. This could have
add-ons for say Penny Reds, or Machins, or Argentina/Brazil watermarks, or any of
dozens of tough to identify stamps, including of course Wash/Frank.
The person to come up with this could copyright and use a compiled computer lan-
guage that is harder to de-compile and reverse engineer. Then market and sell by
taking it to 'Shark Tank' or someone savvy at marketing and become a multi-millionaire! 
Shoulda' had decaf this mornin'.... 
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
It can't be in the 300s as the "2" is spelled out in letters "TWO" on those stamps.
You said that the stamp is unwatermarked. It looks like a Type VI, making it a #534A, offset printing. I base that on the shading dots on the nose, and it appears that the line of color on the left "2" is heavy.
One problem with the stamp is that the cancellation is over some of the key ID elements for the different types.
Regarding value, people collect them. It's worth a little, but not much.
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Another One to check
nl1947,
I am no expert by any means, but first you stamp cannot be a 344 or 384. The design is different. (See the bottom denomination). Your stamp is either a 532, 533, 534, 534A or 534B. Based on your scan I can eliminate type Va (maybe), VI and VII. That would eliminate the 534. 534A and 534B, leaving only the 532 and 533. Count the number of shading dots in the 3rd horizontal row above the nostril. If it has 6 dots then it is a type IV or type V. But more is needed. I would need a clearer view of the toga button to determine if type IV or V. I am a little confused however because I see only one vertical shading line in the ribbon's curve over the 2 at the inner curve on the right above the number 2. None of the mentioned Scott numbers above have only 1 line, they should have 2. Maybe someone with more knowledge and a keener eye can shed some light.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Mel, I think it's a type VI. The dots on the nose are aligned, and it looks like the color bar on the left "2" is heavy. The line on the "2" on a Type IV and V is weak.
There's not much else to go on, because of the cancel covering up the details.
Login to Like
this post
11:18:34am
re: Another One to check
Thank you
From my limited experience with US stamps, the 1847US site did lead me to believe it is a Type VI.
The cancellation blocks the toga & medallion that were important to ID it.
Some items as mbo1142 mentions were confusing
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Thanks for the challenge. That wasn't an easy one.
Login to Like
this post
02:57:47pm
re: Another One to check
Again based on 1847USA, I think this is a type III.
Perf 11, frame 19.5 x22
2 lines in scroll & v in ornament
Is it a 546?
Login to Like
this post
04:35:16pm
re: Another One to check
nl1947
Hi All
What does the reverse side of your stamp in question look like. Does it have offset ink?
Basic identification tells you a rotatory stamp will not have any ink on the reverse, flat plate printed stamps 99.9% will show some ink on the reverse (in reverse orientation).
DAVID THOMPSON
MSGT/USAF/RETIRED
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Another One to check
Michael,
I agree that the upper line of base of the left number 2 may be thicker, hard to tell from the scan. I eliminated the VI based on the number of dots in the third row above the nostril. If not mistaken, the VI only has 4 dots (hard to tell from the scan). If there are 6 dots, then it must be a IV or V. You are correct some of the identifiers are covered by the post mark. I would need to have better scan of those particular areas to make a better guess. What do you think re only one vertical shading line in the ribbon's curve over the 2 at the inner curve on the right above the number 2?
I also agree with USAFE7, regarding the offset ink on the second scan.
Are we having fun yet?
Mel
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
"What do you think re only one vertical shading line in the ribbon's curve over the 2 at the inner curve on the right above the number 2? "
Other types have that characteristic as well, so I didn't pay that much attention to it.
nl, the Washington/Franklins are the nightmares of many US collectors. These stamps really turned out to be experiments for the post office. They tried different printing techniques (rotary, flat plate and offset), perforations (I won't list all of them), watermarked paper, un-watermarked paper, paper types and colors, different die types (everyone's favorite), coils, private coils, imperfs. Did I leave anything out? Anyway, the results of the experiments are seen in the 1922 definitive set.
To help narrow the search down, it will help us to know if you spotted a watermark or not, and if yes, then what kind. Perforations definitely and printing type.
Of course, when you get that far, you just about have it pegged. Yes, it is best not to work for lengthy amounts of time on these issues. A little at a time, or else you'll go crazy and wind up lining the walls of your rooms with them.
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Here is an image of an item that if you ever run across it, buy it.
They are long out of production, and very hard to find. They show up in box lots and in old dealer supply stock. They are worth their weight in gold and will help you figure out the Washington/Franklin stamps.
I have had mine for many years. I got it out of an auction stamp supply box lot.
If anyone wants to buy it from me, I'll trade you for a British Guiana Scott #13. If you don't have the stamp, then send me a cashier's check for the 2015 catalog value of the stamp. That's how much I value this tool.
Login to Like
this post
08:19:28pm
re: Another One to check
Regarding the last scan - not a hint of a watermark.
Talk about minor differences - I collect Brazil
14 different watermarks on the same set of definitives over a 30 year period and they put one in with no watermark to make it interesting.
As for the reverse of the 2nd scan - seems to have a reddish bleed?
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Brazil definitives are another one of those philatelic "hells" that many have to suffer through. Argentina has its share too, as does China, and others.
Login to Like
this post
12:47:38am
re: Another One to check
Hi All
michael78651
Reference: The Easy Way U.S. Stamp Identifier.
It seem strange, but it's true, when I was working with the Washington Franklin head stamps there wasn't any U. S. stamp Identifiers around. Had to memorize everything about them. Worked out a system of Pick Up Points (PUP). Memorized all the perf combos and the basics of identification. Worked out a way to determine the perf gauge without a perf gauge. All this came in very handy when going to a stamp bid board, especially if you could not examine the stamp in question, other than just looking at it. Of course you could not watermark a stamp, so that did not work. Picked up many identified incorrectly, like 499's that were really 500. I still use the system I memorized way back in the 50's. Just picked up from EBay an RE31 perf 11 that was listed as RE20. Some time ago picked up a RE107D that was listed as RE59.
I encourage everybody to memorize the basic stamp identification and not depend of these identifiers. Sure when you are at home and have stamps in front of your that you can examine use your identifier.
DAVID THOMPSON
MSGT/USAF/RETIRED
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Another One to check
Eating humble pie. The older I get the more my mouth talks before my eyes and brain start to work together. My mistake in earlier post re the dots on the nose. The Type VI should have the 6 dots and not the 4 as I mentioned. Therefore, I promise that from now on I will read and read before making comments.
In my defense, I did say that there were others with more knowledge and keener eye sight than me.
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Mel, John Hotchner has been writing a series of articles for Linns about how the expertization process works. Basically it begins when someone sends a stamp in for identification. Then several "experts" look at the stamp and offer their opinions. The discussion continues, not unlike how it happens online here where the people trying to make the ID go back and forth, and then settle (usually) on what they believe to be the right call.
The discussion that ensues to try to help someone ID a stamp helps everyone learn how to ID stamps, even those participating in the discussion. I rechecked the image based on what you posted in case I missed something. The cancel makes it tough to ID.
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Great discussion all. As one who is only recently re-entering the stamp world, and who is moving from my youth-friendly Harris Liberty album to the more serious Scott National, I need to learn more of this.
Thank you Mel for the hobby-explaining meticulously-precise quote of the day:
"Count the number of shading dots in the 3rd horizontal row above the nostril. If it has 6 dots then it is a type IV or type V."
I can see I need to invest in a better magnifying glass!
Michael, will the center portion of your identifier pull out? If so, we could create some quality facsimiles as a unique SOR product. If there are copyright issues (always seem to be), perhaps we could design our own using that one as a reference?
-Steve
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Steve, I only scanned in one side. There are more identifiers on the other side. There is a two-sided sleeve that slides back and forth like a slide-rule (now how many know about slide rules?).
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
I do know about slide rules, having attended high school in the transition period from slide rules to calculators. Our physics teacher required us to show proficiency in the slide rule before he would allow us to use calculators in class.
In your device, does the center part slide all the way out. That is, could we make high-res scans of all of the printed surfaces?
-Steve
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Steve, the device does show a copyright, and the company that made it is still in business today. I have contacted them about the identifier. I'll let you know what they say when I hear back from them.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Another One to check
Thanks, Michael. In the meantime, I have "more than plenty" of other resources to dig into from my beginner-level perch here!
-Steve
Login to Like
this post
re: Another One to check
Hi Everyone;
I well remember slide rules. I had to purchase from the DeVry Institute of Technology
bookstore, the infamous 'Versalog' slide rule. Its 20+ scales on both of its sides. All
the Trig and Log scales took a good bit of time to master.
In those days the only calculators available were Texas Instruments, with the little
tiny red LEDs that were very hard to see. The only model TI had that would do every-
thing that the Versalog could do, was retailing for US$400+.
The metaphor of a slide-rule is a great idea. Instead of just copying someone else,
why not be original and make a better one as a software application. This could have
add-ons for say Penny Reds, or Machins, or Argentina/Brazil watermarks, or any of
dozens of tough to identify stamps, including of course Wash/Frank.
The person to come up with this could copyright and use a compiled computer lan-
guage that is harder to de-compile and reverse engineer. Then market and sell by
taking it to 'Shark Tank' or someone savvy at marketing and become a multi-millionaire!
Shoulda' had decaf this mornin'....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post