Help Identification Color 1847 Scott #1 Mint

Good morning
Help identification color 1847 scott #1 thank's very much

That doesn't look mint to me, unless the blue marks are something other than a cancellation.

Also as a reminder, it is impossible to identify a color on a computer screen since every piece of electronic equipment is just a little different. Enough of a difference to make color ID highly improbable.
Now, if you can scan a similar stamp with a known shade next to it ( same scan! ) then it is possible to compare and ID a color.


Peter

pisti,

I believe this to be Scott #3 reproduction of 1847. Any time I see an unused Scott 1, it is almost always a Scott 3. It is no doubt red brown.
Unfortunately the stamp is plagued by multiple large thins in the area of Mr. Franklin's head, ;likely the result of removal of hinge or from an album page.
Hate when that happens.

Regardless would like to hear from others? The white shirt frill and where it intersects the oval on left side is generally the discriminatory factor in telling a Scott #1 from a Scott #3. Personally I would rather have this as a Scott 3 in this condition with thins, so bonus for you if I am correct!

Definitely a Scott #3, the 1875 reproduction.

And really nothing in the way of shades for that, just red brown.

I agree, an 1875 reprint. You can tell by the shape of the white shirt frill and where it touches the oval frame.

Good call people. Having never owned a US #1 nor #3, I'll keep that in mind if I ever go after a #1.

where do you see a thin ? I see spot without stain at the back, small black and pinkish (purple ) stains at the back, and spot of black ink in front, look carefully on the forehead, we can see the engraving true the black ink

this is a very nice stamp

What is on the back of the stamp? #3 is issued without gum.

Area66:

I'm not 100 percent sure those are thins, but the back is a mess and suggests to me there is damage where the hinge was removed? Owner could easily tell if holds up to light. When a back of a stamp looks like that I generally infer it is not sound. If it was on eBay with a back that looked like that, I would never buy it if advertised as a sound stamp.

rlsny:

If there is remnants of gum on back that you suggest, then likely it was attempt to cover up thins/faults and pawn this baby off as a Scott unused #1 with gum. I can't tell for sure if that is glistening/crackling gum on back or not.

Perhaps others can give opinion

I don't think it's any coincidence the area that appears to be missing paper content, is where a hinge had likely been.

Certainly not a leap to think these areas are thins.

from the picture I can't say it's thins, I see it differently, I see the dark color around the spot as some remains of the hinges, may be start of molds ???? the blackish spots are also present on all the back

An on hand inspection will be the solution

Agreed^^^ I should have written, it's not a leap to think these may be thins.
I also agree it's a very nice stamp. Great margins

Almost positive it's an altered proof, not the official reproduction. Probably Scott 3P4, shaved with fake gum added.

Srailkb,

Good call, especially in light of other proofs OP posted for ID.

*** Edited by Staff - Please Review the rules that you agreed to when you registered. ***
I think is a very nice sample, considering the age, beautiful color, margins. Beautiful.