In A Quandry On This Washington 2c ...

Just purchased this one, and I'm positively terrible with regards to accurately identifying perf measurements from a photo... 424 ? 461 (if WM'd?) 499 (Full Ty I ?)

Should have it by the weekend, in which case I'll perf it and check for watermarks...

It's a perf. 11, so just need to check the watermark wrt 461 vs. 499.

Thank you kindly... hoping for a 461, but Full Ty I's are pretty rare... (but not valuable)... I've actually seen some sellers list these as 500's and some even with certs from expertizers whom I won't name - cert these as 500's...

Was not aware that Type I's were rare. I know that Type Ia's are scarce (Scott 500).

(IMHO) Full Ty I's are far more rare than Ty Ia's... I've been looking through listings for 499's and 500's for years and years... and (very seldom) see them... and, the times I (have) seen them, they're listed as 500's... (go figure)

disi123, what do you mean by full type 1's? I've never heard of that before.

themachine... quoting Martin A Armstrong from his illustrated book ~ "Washington-Franklins 1908-1921" ... Second Edition, 1979, page 41 ...

FULL TYPE-I FLAT PLATE 2 CENT DESIGN

FOUND AMONG THE PRINTINGS OF : 406, 409, 411, 413, 425, 442, 444, 461, 499

DESIGN SIZE : 18.5-19mm wide by 22mm high

"Most catalogues illustrate the Type-I as being weak.
This is caused by inferior ink, paper and weak impressions
as well as worn printing plates. This type is found during
the period which coincided with the economic difficulties
of World War-I.

(1) General weak features, at times even blurred.
(2) The toga button may be complete in some cases,
but will be very thin. More often found incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------

The thing to consider and think about, is - that the
design (first usages Feb of 1912) beginning with the
406 at the changeover from "TWO CENTS" to "2CENTS2"
was in use for 5 years before the first 499 perf 11
printing, (Mar of 1917), at which time most of the
plates were likely quite worn...

Fast forwarding to the 500 (Dec 15, 1919)...

Per Armstrong... "This was an experimental subject die
containing ten impressions. Therefore, to insure that
all impressions would be clear, a greater amount of
pressure was required to prepare the plate. This
accounts for the thick appearance of the lines forming
the design."

(1) The toga button is most distinctive appearing to
be twice as thick than even the finest Type-I.
(2) The general appearance is deeper. Each line will
have the appearance of being wider or stronger.
(3) The color in which this experimental issue was
produced is an extremely deep carmine rose unlike that
of any other issue.
------------------------------------------------------

My final comment Re : Full Ty I

Given all of the above data (AND I WILL NOW NAME THE
EXPERTIZER WHOM IS (ALLEGEDLY) CERTING FULL
Ty-I's as Ty-Ia's is none other than PSE)...

ANY SURPRISE?

(the completed listings were on ebay with cert copies
last I checked).

(Available) Full Ty-I's exist and are quite rare given
all of the discussed factors... (not rare statistically
with regards to quantities issued vs the Ia's, of course)
but with regards to samples/copies available in the
marketplace (in perf 11)... far more rare than Ia's in
those terms of purchase availability...

I welcome anyone's commentary for discussion...

Armstrong's reasoning behind the Type Ia, though the accepted (and documented) explanation, is implausible. The 10-subject roller was larger than a single roller, so the contact patch with the plate created when the surfaces deformed under stress would be greater than that of a single-transfer roller, both to transfer subjects to the roller from the 10-subject plate and to transfer the ten positions to the printing plate. No more pressure (force per unit area) was required for adequate transfer. Rather, additional FORCE was required on the multi-subject roller to attain the SAME pressure as was applied to a single-subject roller. The confusion comes from the conflation of pressure and force in the literature. The BEP had experience in transferring all sorts of subject sizes, and adjusting the force placed on the roller would have been a critical step in plate making, so such a mistake would not be so likely as presumed.

All you have to do is compare a die proof of the Type I to a Type Ia stamp to see that the accepted extra-pressure explanation is incorrect. The toga button on the proof is not more than a round scratch in most places. No amount of pressure would turn that pathetic line into the doughnut seen on a Type Ia stamp.

Then look at a handful of #500's and where you would expect to see an extra shading line in the ribbon for a Type III stamp you will see a bit of inking, from small marks to half-shading lines, on most of the #500's. Scott is wrong that there is not a shading line in the ribbon on a Type Ia. It's just inconsistent in presentation, but is without question there on most #500's and yet completely missing on the die proof.

Same for the Type II three cent. There is a line of shading added to the ribbon just like for the 2-cent type III but Scott doesn't note it. Neither does Armstrong, Johl, Schmidt, etc. It even transferred to the Type IV offset, since it was a Type II proof that was photographed for the Type IV image.

I have the Armstrong book and the explanation of the "enhanced" Type I is confusing at best. I really don't see that much difference.
The explanation of the type Ia is a little more straight forward. The way I understand Type Ia is that the lines are stronger, particularly the toga rope and the button.

Tipzi, I'm excited to see you are posting on this board! Looking forward to reading your in-put on a variety of issues.

Dave