Banknote Grills Poll - Update

The Scott catalog does not differentiate between the "H" and "I" grills on the 1870 National Banknote Co. grilled issues. These are the only issue with different grills that do not have a separate major catalog number.

UPDATE With the 2013 Specialized the "H" and "I" grills will have separate listings. Thank You Scott Catalogue

What would you like to see Scott do?

The current catalog tends to undervalue the rarer "I" grill. I fell that they should have a separate major catalog number for each grill type.

If I was a serious student of the Bank Notes I would say major, looking at it as an intermediate collector of US, probably just a minor.

My chances of coming into possession of both H and I, let alone a single example is pretty slim. That being with the exception of #136 these stamps are bit on the spendy side. Well maybe with a little luck #134 and #135 would fall from the sky. You think Scott er um Amos would print an addendum to the National album ?

Russ, in Micarelli's 2006 edition, it states on page 60 that the I grill was used on the 1,2,3,6,7 and 15 cent values however on page 68 the 15 cent Webster page it lists only H grille, for this value. What's your take on this?

I only have #136 and it is H grill

Fred, the 15 cent Webster (141) was issued with bothe the "H" and "I" grill. The "I" grill is extremely rare on this issue the last one I saw at auction was Siegel sale 1007 lot 2333.

EDIT: the 10 cent (139) an 90 cent (144) are also know with the "I" grill

Russ,

I wonder if the problem Scott notes of grill impressions of the 1870-71 stamps being "usually feint or incomplete" had something to do with their cataloging decision. I'm assuming that the annotation applies to both grill types, given that it adds "This is especially true of the H grill, which often shows only a few points." If both H and I grills were to be assigned major catalog numbers, how would you differentiate between the two on a stamp with an incomplete grill?

I do think it appropriate to assign minor catalog numbers for readily identifiable grills if there is, as you point out, a difference in rarity. You'll have to add my "minor category" vote to the tally -- I viewed the results prior to voting -- sorry.

Steve

Steve, the banknote grills are aften faint or incomplete and that creates a problem. Of course we have a similar problem with the 1868-69 split grills that are sometime impossible to determine the exact grill. Unfortunately there is no perfect answer. The fact that the National Banknote Co. used 2 distinct grill types, IMHO, produces 2 distintively different stamps. Although I believe that they should be different major numbers, I believe that some distinction, other than a simple note in the catalog, is approipriate.
Most estimates I have read indicate that in the 1, 2 and 3 cent issues that the "I" grill accounted for probably less than 30% of production with even less in the 6 and 7 cent values and extremely rare in the 15 cent.
I do appreciate your input, thanks.

A quick inventory of my 4 banknotes w/ grills shows one definite 10x10 I on the 134, a definite 10x13 I on one 135, and "I dunno" on the other 135 and the 136. I was happy enough initially that these four had grills and I didn't have to get down and dirty and figure out which grill they were. I'm voting for a major and a minor. Given how hard the ID is in many cases, it's easier to have a base bucket to dump it into, and if you can make the call, there's a minor number to assign it and the consequent increased value.

(Side note, the reason I can't ID the second 135 is because it's gunked up with all this gum. The stamp is used, has a nice fancy cancel, and has most of its original gum. Is there any value to used gum?)

Just my opinion but, if its used with a cancellation then the gum has no value, especially if its hiding the grill identification. I would soak the gum off and identify the grill. But, I'm into the details more than the value. Remember, stamp collecting is a hobby, not an investment.

However, I wouldn't soak an unused stamp for grill identification purposes.

If you have a filtered long-wavelength UV lamp, you can hit the stamp with ~365nm UV light and the grill points will light up. In general, this method will not be affected by gum. Back when I was actively collecting US, that's how I ID'ed the grill points/size; it's quick with little eye-strain, and it does a good job of showing weak grills. Of course, the higher power lamp the better. I don't know how well this works with the small philatelic longwavelength UV lamps. Make sure you wear UV protection eyeware if you use the higher wattage lamps.

Amazon has a variety of UV LCD lights in the 10-20 dollar range, not to steep a price to have a look-see. And I can pull out all my black light posters from the 70s! Thanks khj.




So true. And the corollary, that I need to remind myself of every now and again is, "there's no rush, be patient."

I've always used filtered UV light so that passes through at ~365nm. Worked great for me in the past. To be honest, I've never tried it with consumer grade UV bulbs, which tend to emit at a broad spectrum. The problem with a broad UV spectrum is you will have a mix of photoluminescence which may or may not give you the intensity contrast needed to spot the grill points. Can't hurt to try with any UV lights you might have handy around the house. Let me know results if you do.