Really bad cover but the
ebay image was really blue looking to me, and I thought it had a chance to be lavender pink-- which once I received it, it was not. But still a really nice color. It was advertised as #65 (even though someone had written #64 on the cover). I've asked Jack Daley to look at the 9600dpi image, and he agreed that it is not #65 and is probably an under-tinted pink #64:
And here is the stamp:
Again, a lousy cover, the stamp has a minor flaw-- a perf tip crease on the upper left, but other than that, it's a nice stamp-- and it cost me $57. I was also interested in the origin in Lexington-- pigeon bloods are known out of Louisville (Cincy is another place where there have been some pigeon bloods on cover), so I was crossing my fingers and hoping.
I bought this one from one of Jack Daley's
ebay auctions-- it is a deep pink, thin paper #64, with a little thin. Completely different than my other pinks:
This one isn't dated 1861, it's early 1862 (Feb 28), and pinks are still known in early '62.
It's a shame that I was the only person to bid on this stamp. I won it for the minimum bid of $29.50, but I bid quite a bit higher than that.
So, pinks are out there for the taking, at decent prices. I'm not worried about perfection-- just want to be able to have as many in my hand as I can, to help me recognize one when I see one. Reference copies are the best way to go when it comes to color--
Happy Thanksgiving-- Ray
Posted 11/22/2012 10:12 am
Then, when you have them all, you'll sell them for a huge profit. Kinda like those brothers tried with silver several years ago. Gotta like the price.
