65/64 Question Again..

Hi. I am about to write it in as a 65 (fed up getting my hopes up)but would value the opinion of others before I do.. thanks in advance.

#65. These came in many shades, and I don't see a hint of pink.

I agree it is #65, but before I mention the rest, remember that every monitor shows every shade differently.....

Put yours together with the shade in this ebay auction: 251417431326

I think yours has more brown than the stamp in Jack's listing, but from the first look I took at it, it did remind me of one of the "Brooklyn Pinks", which is the pinkish rose of 1863, which can be commonly mistaken for one of the pinks, and is #65. The pinkish rose is listed in Scott, and if I remember correctly, Bill Weiss may have had something to do with convincing Scott listing that shade. The shade isn't rare, but it isn't common either. Not as valuable as a pink or even a rose pink, but more valuable than a rose #65.

If Bill sees this, am I remembering correctly on this one?

Hope this helps, and hope I'm correct!! Ray

definitely a #65, not pink, not even rose pink #64b

Thanks Ray for the info. It is seems to be quite Close in colour to the 6 ct. 208 I have, but that seems quite faded too. I am finding it seems to get harder to identify a colour the more I look, not the other way around.

and I quess that my stamp has a Little more red or seems to be very slightly deeper in colour than the stamp on ebay. Very Close though.