Unclear Scott Definitions... 499A Or 499c ?

Scott does not give a concise definition
of what is 'a' and what is 'c'... any
help to clarify this would be appreciated...

By the way they state the two, it (appears)
(maybe) a=imperf horizontally top or bottom
and perf'd between, whereas they specifically
state c='imperf between'

Trying to guess at (either) is a bit nebulous,
most especially-given there also exists a third
type (albeit possibly classified as an EFO) with
the imperf between the frames, with a row of ghost
perfs notably across the top of the head of the
bust in the lower stamp...

(see next image in my followup with ghost perfs)

499 pair with ghost perfs (two images)

I think this is 499c (imperf between). 499a is imperf horizontally, implying to me that there should be no perfs at the top or bottom of the pair. I've always wondered about pairs such as this where the imperf between pair is valued below the other. Trimming the top & bottom perfs off would seem like a simple operation ... provided, of course, that there is ample selvage to permit trimming. For your example, this is not the case. Nevertheless, I suspect one would want to have a candidate 499a expertized to detect such alteration. 1338k & 1338u are similar examples that come to mind.

I was thinking more along the lines
that the 499a would look similar to
the scan below which is a 540v pair
which I have in my collection, which
may be a possible fake (see the left
perfs), although where would the Type
III stock come from to fake it...

I think 499a would be imperf at both top & bottom ... with no perfs in between the two stamps. But that is an assumption that might not be entirely accurate. Perhaps imperf on only top or bottom would be sufficient. I do know that there has always been much confusion amongst ebay sellers as to what 499a/499c or 1338k/1338u really are. But one clue may be that almost all the 1338u listed on ebay (imperf horiz.) are as I described for 499a whereas most 1338k are indeed "imperf between" with perfs on all sides (similar to what I think is 499c). While my experience has been with the modern issues (e.g., 1338), I do believe the terminology should be consistent over all eras. Hence my belief that your original photo was of 499c.
It just dawned on me that there are two excellent examples of "imperf horiz." items that come from the same era as 499. Look at 538a & 540a. Every example of these that I've seen are imperf at both top & bottom, just as I would expect 499a to be.

The more we talk about it, the more
I think you're right... and the 499a
would look like this 540a...

Several vendors on ebay are offering 499c pairs as "a" pairs, and more than a few are offering pairs with shifted blind perfs as the imperf between variety (499c). That is a questionable thing. However, Bill Langs is offering a nice block which is the true 499a, for a price commensurate with its catalog value:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/499a-UNIQUE...em2ec638f1ce

Hi, essayk... thank you kindly for your input...

Yes... I saw Lang's block... impressive, indeed...

However, the original question remains unanswered...
is the pair below 'a' or 'c' ... I get the feeling
the answer is 'a' from your response, and the blind
perfs (which Scott does not directly reference) are 'c'?

Randall

disi123, the original question was answered (by several people.) The pair you're picturing would be a 499c (imperf between), assuming there are no blind perfs.

A Scott 499a pair would be imperf horizontally (no perforations at all in the horizontal direction; none at top, none between stamps, none at bottom.) The item you pictured is imperf between but has horizontal perfs at top and bottom, so not 499a.

Any 499 pair that looks imperf between (e.g. 499c) but has an extra row of horizontal blind perfs (shifted or not) would be neither of those numbers. It would be a freak/oddity of regular Scott 499.

Hopefully that clarifies things for you.

Hi, Ken... thank you kindly for your
eloquent explanation... it would be
nice if Scott notated it in the same
fashion as you have (or a reasonable
facsimile thereof), so people would
not have to guess or assume... (and)
henceforth enable people with clear
data so they may list their pairs
with correct and proper designations...

Randall

Actually, Scott does explain this in detail. Unfortunately, until now I hadn't looked for the info. You'll find it in the US Specialized Introduction under General Glossary.

JL... thank you kindly...

I'll definitely read up on that
when I get home from the office...

Randall