#114 That I Can't Find The Grill- Need Your Eyes Please?

It seems that I can see it too. It's hard to tell from a scan. I'm not sure that I would put much faith in a cheap expertization on this one...If it were mine and I were just a bit more convinced than I am, I might spring for an expensive certification from a well known provider...

Now, now, Buck, be careful who yer callin' cheap there.

To what do you attribute the absence of a grill in 1869 as opposed to 1870, Bill?

In your opinion how would/could/should/might we account for the difference?



Was there something different about the process in 1870, the condition of the equipment, the attitude of the company/workers?

Those are terrific questions essayk, and I can't help but wonder given your extensive background in the specialty of the Banknote issues, that you probably have better theories than I do! As you well know, "why" a decent percentage of 1870-issue stamps lack a grill has been batted around since before you and I (well, I'll just speak for myself.....) were born!

One theory is that as the grills wore away during production, the workers simply allowed the wear to go uncorrected and eventually, a few grills completely disappeared. That same theory holds that even though the 1870 contract specified grilled stamps, there was little or no oversight by the POD who, for unknown reasons, "looked the other way".

Since we know for sure that we don't encounter this much on the 1869 issue stamps and we know that the same company produced both issues, it would seem that there *must* be a logical explanation.

What's yours?

I sort of knew about the parameters of their Q&A from Brookman's so I never thought I had anything really special but just could never find a point that I felt comfortable calling one anyway so I brought it to the forum for other opinions (a few years ago). Thank you.

I had a suspicion that I was phrasing my question badly. I was trying to get a fix on why you say that we don't find many missing grill examples among the 1869's, at least not in comparison to the grills on the Banknotes. Let me ask it this way: there seem to be quite a few examples of the 3c 1869 in which the grill is not readily apparent. Some have suggested that these all had grills, but shallow ones that did not break the paper and were convincingly pressed out. That would be a tendency that gets more pronounced among the Banknotes. However, among the Banknotes we are free to speak of pairs, for example, with and without grill. Does that not happen among the 1869s? Couldn't some of those Banknote pairs be fabricated by pressing out grills?

I would like to nail down the difference in our perception of the problem in one series versus the other before trying to account for how it may have happened.

Why deny that 1869s that do not appear to have a grill, of which there are many, do not have a grill AND MAY NEVER HAVE HAD ONE VISIBLE from the day they were issued? [I have not followed the study of this question for the 1869s and do not know what is said.]

You just beat me to the punch.

I have seen numerous multiples of large banknotes where one stamp is grilled and the next one isn't.

I don't recall seeing that with the 1869s, or could I be wrong?

ARRRGH! Ya Got me!

I really can't answer your question essayk, simply because I think that every Banknote "missing grill" I've seen has been unused with OG. Which is the reason Scott requires OG to be present before they will recognize a "missing grill" on the 1869 issue. Frankly, I think they ought to follow that policy through to the 1870 issue as well (although I don't believe they currently list any 1870 stamp with "missing grill"). I think they SHOULD list them for the 1870 issues.

Now as far as USED copies with "missing grill", I agree that they should be discounted as are the 1869 issue - even though with that being said - we believe that the workmanship slipped in 1870 as I previously noted (do you have a better explanation?).

Remember though, that the big difference in the "missing grill" debate is the fact that they might be 1875 reissues, whereas there is no such problem with the 1870 missing grill stamps. Which is why it becomes critical that the other elements of ID (aside from having no grill) must be present on used copies before expert services will consider them to be 1875 reissues. A few of the reissues have a unique element (the 15c is a different type altogether and the 90c colors are dratically different from the 1869 stamp), but otherwise, the only way to ID the other values is by color, impression and cancel.

FYI-both certified examples of the 114a are in the Bennett auction that was recently posted on stamp auction network.