Scott 189, 1879 Webster Double Transfer.

I bought this the other day and it is on the way. I believe I see a double transfer. There are marks in the U-S-P-O-S and the 1-C of 15 CENTS. It was sold as a Scott 189 but the back looks like wove paper.
Opinions please.

In my opinion you ought to wait till you get the stamp and if you still think there is something post a very high def scan of this stamp! Nice stamp, by the way!

Peter

Thanks Peter, I will do that.

Received the stamp and it is horizontal wove paper according to the curling on top and bottom when placed in water. This would make this stamp an 1873 Scott 163 as it appears to have the "V" in UL triangle. Here are the marks in the lettering I was referring to.

It has the "look" of a 189 to me (and possibly/probably reperfed at right.)

I would say definitely a #189. Paper looks very soft.

Here's a 163... with a PFC... notice
the very strong darkening in the left
hand triangle...

Since all of the issued Bank Note papers are wove paper, your basis for deciding it is a Continental printing makes no sense. The loose fibers clearly visible in the close photos make it clear this is an American BNCo print on soft paper, hence 189.

You seem to be confusing the distinction between hard paper and soft paper. Did you look at the study I referred you to earlier by Lowell Cooper on paper mesh?

Thanks for the 189, but what about the marks I pointed out.

I would not even put it past reperfded @ top also...

It's a 189. Take a look at the pic I posted about hard vs soft papers on large banknotes.

kevin504, yes, now that you mentioned it...and back to the OP's question, I don't think it's a double transfer. Just looks like some stray ink dots/marks to me. IMO, there's no consistency to the displacement or identifiable (shifted) design elements.

If you look at the background shading in the vignette frame you will see that it is a rather solid mass of color rather than the usual web of crosshatching. In the closeup of the numeral "15" notice how the ink seems to have "piled up" all around the numeral. This stamp has a strong color because it is very generously inked. Interestingly, the image of the 163 shown here has a similar look for its type of paper and printing. It does not surprise me on stamps that tend toward overinking to find stray ink spots from time to time. But as srailkb has pointed out, there does not appear to be a pattern to it such as one would find with the marks of a double transfer. In a case like this the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that it is a double transfer, but from what I am able to see in the images that does not appear to be the best explanation for the markings here. But then, to me Ursa Major looks like a big dipper; I don't see a bear there at all. Such are random patterns in the stars. If you see my point?!

So once again you list an item and completely lie about it. You constantly lie in your listings and are the epitome of what a deceitful seller is.

What a complete joke this listing is, especially after what you were told here.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/United-Stat...em3f391aa58c

Stallzer don't you have anything better to do than harass people? I have not lied, or been deceitful. Can you not see the "MARKS ON LETTERING"?? Look especially at the bottom of the "U" in U.S to see the possible doubling.
Previously you also accused me of being deceitful and lying on my bay Scott 9 double transfer listing. You said "Case and point - You have a 1 cent Franklin up for sale now that you list having a double transfer. Please tell us what it's been plated as. If you can't then it's a deceptive sale, without knowing it's plate and position you can't possibly list it as having a double transfer." I replied "Stallzer, quit being ridiculous. The plate position is on the listing. It is an 86R1L. That is an obvious dbl transfer. It is one of the easier dbl transfers to see." You then replied "So the greatest studies of the Franklin stamp, Neinken,and Ashbrook both missed it, but you didn't. Give me a break." I then said "Stallzer, check Neinken's book and you will see 86R1L is listed as a double transfer. PLEASE STOP!"
So once again I will ask you to PLEASE STOP harassing me.
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/271536036575....m1555.l2649

Coinwatcher,
I am not harassing you, I am trying to help you learn. I implore you to listen to these folks. You are getting good, free advice, and are thumbing your nose at them with your listings.

You absolutely suck at writing listing descriptions. They are misleading when paired with your asking price; implying that you are offering something rare. Using all CAPS is also silly, makes your listing look obviously bogus.

I understand if you don't want to pay for an ID or cert. But please stop assuming that somehow all these rarities have landed on your desk and throwing them on ebay with such outrageous listings. This isn't going to end well for you if you keep it up; your reputation has already been damaged.

If you don't trust the great input that you are getting here, try trusting the free market forces. In other words, list them on ebay but and describe what you MAY think makes the stamp unusual. But start the price at catalog value. If the stamp is TRUELY unusual it will attract bidders who will bid it up beyond that. If you are unwilling to risk this because you believe so strongly in it being rare; then the stamp has to be worth sending in for an ID or cert before listing!

But continuing to ignore the combined centuries worth of experience that is being offered to you from the input of these fools is really making you look like a jerk and someone that no one would ever want to buy from. Its not too late, you are still learning. But PLEASE STOP now and repair your reputation.
Don