New Additions #2 --- No, Not Harry

I paid just slightly over 10% of CV for these.

Here is the 70a image the dark spot is ink, it does not go through the back. this is a 1200 dpi scan
the color in the scan is the color in person.

the #32 is nasty..a crease from Georges mouth to the lhs side of the stamp..

Stallzer,

The one on ebay is interesting, but seems to be a color changeling, if memory serves that type of British receiving mark that you see on it wasn't used until quite a while after the stamp was no longer in use.

I personally wouldn't buy those other stamps, although the last one looked possibly OK, the only poorly centered or faulty 24c stamps I ever buy are multiples for plating purposes or straddle pane copies, captured imprints, etc. I have a few that are very off center but only if they are capable of being plated (Position 1-10L or R, or Position 90-100, or 1, 11, 21, etc L or 10, 20, 30 R, etc.

Yes, the 30c has obvious corner creasing at the upper right.

What's easily as curious is seeing images online of these stamps and then seeing them in person during lot viewing, oftentimes you would think you are looking at totally different items.

Thanks for the bigger scan.

Faulty Greyish Lilac... or some variant thereof. The dead giveaway that it's not an early shade? The ragged perfs.

you say faulty. I say a few missing perfs, is not to bad for a 150 year old stamp.
bill at least you agree it is a 70a?

the other two are sent back. this only thing not perfect about this stamp is the perfs. and for the 10% of CV. I got a good deal.

The perfs. on the right hand side appear to be hand made rather from a machine.

they gauge correctly and pass the image manipulation test.

This is in no way intended as a criticism of anything which has been said. You can make the statement that a better one can be found about practically every stamp you own or are going to buy. I think that what you do is decide what you can live with.

As for me, I had much rather have a stamp with a thin which cannot be seen from the front than one with front visible flaws.

rohumpy.. so a thin is better then some bad perfs?

Yes, in my opinion a thin that does not show on the front is to be preferred over defective perfs

I dunno, I mean it's cheap but yes, it's faulty.

When I say ragged perfs... easiest way is to go to the PF's site, look at certified 70bs and then look at certified 99s.

Later pritings tend to have ragged perf holes.

It's not a 70a in all likelihood!

Actually from the scan it looks like a 78, Lilac, to me.

The more I see of 70 and 78, the more confused I become. Even allowing for the supposed problems with correct color presentation on a computer, I despair of lilac. I thought I knew what lilac ought to be, but evidently any old shade of grey qualifies. Halfway facetious, but not totally.

I have what is hopefully a 70 and one of the color varieties of 78. I think I will let sleeping dogs lie and just be happy with whatever they are.

Why is this 24 cent stamp so complicated?

so does this look like a 78a? or 70a? it has a blueish/greenish/grayish mix.



here is the first one.