Interesting E-Bay Listing

E-Bay Item 201089334588. Lake color #279B, not listed in Scott and not something I've heard anything about. Opinions?

nope....color is washed out.

It's worth less than 1% of the opening bid. Oxidized, nothing more.

279B is a 279 booklet pane. But that stamp is not from a booklet. N.Y. Stamps should know better.

lol

STAMPOCD, 279B is the type IV for this 2-cent Washington series, not a booklet pane. Regardless of what the type is, there is no Lake color for any of the two-cent types for this issue. As stated it is oxidized/sulfurized causing the color alteration. Posted this for newer collectors infomation. Hope it helped some.

Oxidized/Sulphuretted ink, nothing more. Looks more deep Claret than lake.
Description states: Scott Sc#279B LAKE (Extreme Rare) 2c-Washington (marked 267c on back) USED VF

Not rare by any means. I'm relatively sure it's a Type IV. dots in ear, strengthened toga button, long hair on head, portrait oval is very jagged and the inner right leg of the left numeral "2" is curved. What is a bit puzzling though, is the strong line in the left acanthus however it isn't fully defined the whole way through it, so I'm pretty certain it's a Type IV.

Al E. Gator is correct this is most certainly NOT a booklet pane stamp. Scott #279Bj is the booklet pane number besides there are no straight edges indicative of the booklet singles.

Thanks Gator , for correcting me. Just by chance I had my Scott Specialized open to the booklet pane section when I read this thread. The 1st listing in that section is 279Bj I did not notice the j when I looked at it the 1st time . When I checked the front of the Catalogue they list the booklet pane as either j or k (no B) depending on the orientation of the watermark. I find this very curious. Learning all the time. Or maybe I'm just getting more confused.

STAMPOCD: If you take a closer look at your Scott catalog, you should see that the j entry for this stamp is under 279B. There is a separate entry for 279. What might be confusing is that there is no a or b listed under 279B. This could easily lead one to believe that the remaining lower case entries are for 279 rather than 279B. But this is not the case.
Note that, once 279 & 279B have been assigned, no lower case letter will be assigned to stamps/panes under both of the major numbers. In other words, there will be no 279a and 279Ba. In fact, if another entry were to be assigned under 279, it would be 279m (since l is the final entry under 279B) ... and it would appear directly under 279a.
To see a clearer example of the Scott numbering system in action, look at 1622 and 1622C. These are major catalog numbers. Under 1622 you will find a, b, e, f & g. Under 1622C you will find d & h. The alphabetic order of the letters should closely correlate with the date on which the various stamps were first recognized by Scott. Once a letter has been assigned to either major number (1622 or 1622C), it will never be assigned to the other major number.

Thanks JLLebbet. That indeed is a better example. I think I've got it.

Right?!?!?

Here is another interesting bay listing that just sold for $1260.

Scott 40

My Scott Cat. shows Scott 40 unused at $575,but no price for used. Does this stamp book higher used?

Oh, I think I get it. If a Scott 40, was "Not Valid for Postage". So this would have been a rare cancelled Scott 40. Illegal usage? Rare? Real Cancel?

Although I suppose it's possible for one to be used, it is highly unlikely. Scott states that there are known used examples of the 10c and 24c values (1/ea with contemporaneous cancels) but says nothing about the other stamps in the series being used.

I think it's worth $25 for an opinion from Bill Weiss.

Brian