US Scott #24 - Two Types, One Number

The 1857 perf 15.5 Type V & the 1857 perf 15.5 type Va are both assigned as Scott #24. As perhaps most of you know, the One Cent Franklin issue of 1851-57 have been assigned 12 major numbers and 4 minor numbers, not counting paper types and imperf between or the reprint #40.

Each of these numbers is assigned to a single type. All except the type Va stamps which come from plate 5 and mostly from the right hand plate but not all.

So, why is it that Scott #24 is assigned to two distinct types with but a single note concerning plate 5? I'm sure there is a simple answer, somplace. Aside from "Just because".

Art

Ask Scott. They do a lot of things without a reason. Sometimes things are done before a reason to do otherwise is known and then later nobody takes the initiative to change it...then later still nobody can say why it wasn't done.

Art, I will check Neinkens notes when I get home tonight and see what the explanation is.

In my copy of Neinkens it only mentions that's just the way it is...
I couldn't find an explanation for it. I never asked Scotts, but I think I will.

Art


OK, E-Mail sent, we'll see what their respons is when I get it.

Art

Still no response.
I'll give it awhile longer.

Sorry for the late reply Art, but here goes.



This shows "no listing" for the VA. Neinken states this in his book.

"The Plate 5 Stamps with the almost complete right side ornaments are rather difficult for the Novice to identify. Therefore, when listings of the types of the one cent stamp were made for the specialized catalog, Ashbrook did not recommend a separate type listing for these. He did however, identify them and refer to them as "Type VA" and they are known by this number to all specialists and interested collectors and dealers."

Neinken did go on about how he recommends such a listing due to the important varieties of the type VA. So it was Stanley Ashbrook's decision to not give the VA it's own listing.

Stallzer,

"Neinken did go on about how he recommends such a listing due to the important varieties of the type VA. So it was Stanley Ashbrook's decision to not give the Va it's own listing."

That's piece I didn't know, thanks for your time and response.
Its funny how you can read a book 2-3 times, refering to it often and not see that!

Art

No problem at all Art, it was a great question and fun to research. I found it in chapter XVII (Plate 5) Identification of the plate 5 Stamps.

Hey Stallzer-- that illustration doesn't help much. I think one would really need to see all of the Type V reliefs from that chapter, and the difference between the V and Va in each.

Much easier to ID the type Va on certain reliefs, compared to others. Sometimes the problem is more that you know it's Va, but hard to ID the relief (I'm sure you know that, and it's the "C" and "D" that are really hard)....

I need an "E" relief Type Va......got all the others, and have found them all online since about February of this year, but never bought one of them as a Type Va.....they are definitely out there!

Nice Topic...the Type Va is one of my favorites......Ray

Ray the illustration was not meant to compare designs, I just put it up to help explain Art's question for those who might be interested. It was to show the "Not listed" for the VA as where the Type V was given a catalog number (24).

Ray,

There is, in my opinion, just 1 way to verify positivly that its a type Va #24 stamp. Two test, 1. No Plate scratches on right side, 2. full outside edges of side ornaments; L,M,N,P,Q,R. That being said, as the plate positions will show, later printings do have some of these side ornaments are somewhat diminished. But, if 3+ of the six are there, I still think it's a good Va stamp canidate.




Art