Washington 3 Cents Error

Error in the printing of character ( 0 ) in postage is an important error?And is documented in the catalog

I have seen many of these believe it or not but I am actually not sure if it's listed in Scott catalog or not? I don't believe that it commands any sort of premium however.

OK, I just looked at my Scott catalog and I don't see any mention of it in the regular catalog. Perhaps in the specialized?

Don't see any mention in the Specialized catalogue either.

I think it pretty neat though. Sometimes the thinner areas of the dies would break or crack. It's more of an oddity than an error. Definitely a keeper.

( P ) & ( E ) error in postage


http://api10.webresizer.com/session...796242.88672

E eroor In THREE ( B )

Are there any pictures of a postage stamp-like stamp supply?
I tried searching in the net but I could not find any postage stamp lookalike.

While some will call these errors, most of the time we refer to these as plate flaws.

It's hard to tell from you picture whether you have a plate flaw or simply a surface scratch (scuff mark).

http://www.m5zn.com/img/?img=a4e11aa342e0dce.jpg

Are there any pictures of a postage stamp-like stamp supply?
I tried searching in the net but I could not find any postage stamp lookalike.

Good evening
Does a picture of a similar stamp?¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

Answers are not convincing.
If this stamp belongs to you, you're going to think this way??

It's always surprising to me that Scott doesn't provide major or minor numbers or at least a note concerning such variations. I think Scott is very inconsistant in this regard. Specifically, consider the many types of the 1851-57 One Cent Franklin where the differences between the stamps are very minor that it takes a trained eye to see the difference or flaws. I should think that Scott would have at least mentioned these variations.

Art

With all due respect Art I think it might be a bit premature to dump on Scott for not listing items like this. What do we know about it? In the case of this stamp the reason the letter "O" does not appear closed is because there is a dot of color present in the white space that normally closes it. How did that get there? Is it due to a persistent variation in the way the plate was laid down, or was it due to some stray small object on the plate at the time of printing? One merits listing, but by present standards the other does not. EFO specialists like Wayne Youngblood can help you understand why.

Same has done the right thing in bringing this little EFO to our attention, but now needs to do some more homework on the item. The next step is to determine how that spot of color got misplaced. When a collector does not know how to do that, then the item should be submitted for an expert opinion. If it is a new discovery worthy of listing, then it needs to be "corroborated" with a second example before it would have any chance at catalog listing. Not merely another "like" it, but another example in which the defect is "exactly the same."

I consider same's original post a call for corroboration, and ILS responded with the claim that he has seen more of these. Now is the time to bring them forward, and for others with examples to explain what they are. But for now, let's not criticize the catalog that they are not found in it.

My 2c.

You mean the THREB error is you wish me to provide? I have seen at least 4 I can think of but sadly I own none of them however with a little diligence one could find one on an auction site. I hardly believe that the burden of proof lies solely with me after all it's quit e evident from this whole post that that they certainly do exist and I have seen then written about before on this very forum.

edited spelling correction

By the way essayk I have sent you some pictures of those printing plate in your email if you are interested to see them.