Print Flaws Vs Normal Wear On Used 259

The only 15 cent Andrew Clay, dark blue 259 I have. It has seen better days, I imagine, but after looking more closely, I wonder were it's better days not so good due to a poor print job?

I'd like to learn more about ink flaws, folds (as I did on the wrapper thread posted earlier), etc. I see this 259 as an opportunity to do that.



What I think I see is the white line of creases, after it was put on the cover. The perfs are mostly there, and the alignment isn't too bad. The cancel is difficult to make out, with the naked eye, and I will spend time attempting to bring it out more, when I get the chance. It does not appear to be part of the possible ink flaws, I see.

Right above the top line of the upper left triangle, are two dots. In the lower right corner, near the number 15 there's is a very dark line of ink. This appears in a couple of other places on the stamp, as well.

Those are the most obvious, there are other flaws, and I don't know if it was because this stamp, it appears, might have been left in the rain, due to a hole in the recipients mailbox, before the cover was brought in the house, or if the flaws happened, before it left the printers.

Being new to stamp collecting, I have concentrated on identifying the stamps and the cancels, in order to organize what I have. I would appreciate any help, links, or other similar photos of these type flaws, to learn more about what it is, what it matters, and how to discern the flaws that do matter, as opposed those that don't, if that makes any sense.

Thank you for taking the time to read, and offer any comments.

First observation: The stamp is probably the less expensive watermarked Scott 274. New collectors and ebay sellers often identify based on finding the first instance of a design in the catalog. Unless proven otherwise, the least expensive listing should be used. Until the stamp is soaked off paper, it will not be possible to check for the absence of a watermark.

Second observation: The stamp appears to have major damage including creases and scuffing. Looking for plate flaws on a creased, scuffed stamp may not yield any useful results.

Clark

cet_gg, you've got valid questions and want to learn. Unfortunately, I don't know enough to give you accurate answers.

This is so true. One must be thoroughly familiar with the stamp they are buying before purchase and after receiving it. Even with stamps with more obvious marks it is difficult to find what you're looking for.


-IBFS

Thank you for your replies and observations. I fall into the 'new collector' category. I only had theswedishtiger link, and a couple of others, when I inherited the collection. I plead guilty as charged to just scrolling on to the next stamp, going chronologically. That was how the album had begun. Thank you, Clark, for the advice to believe the lesser, until the more expensive one is proven, after full review.

I realize, now, I have to look at all the small details and Scott catalog's fine print. I also realize it's easier to ID a fledgling, or juvenile, sparrow, than it is these stamps.

Well, I have my Sibley's, my Peterson's, and my Audubon. Now, I have my Scott's. I just need a Cole, and a Weiss, for my cancels, and maybe I'll be better at this, with time, and the help of the community. I will go back, and spend time going back over the ones I thought I had gotten correct, to make sure I have. Again, thank you for your input.

Hey cet_gg, check out my previous post to find a link that has two of the three pertinent cancellation references. The third is $60 and basically not available in local libraries.

https://goscf.com/t/39645

Thank you, HistoricalDNACollector.