2904A Or 2904B Which Has Outlined Text And Is Die Cut 11.2v?

My 2011 Scott Specialized identifies 2904A (mountains, self adhesive coil) as having non-outlined text and serp die cut 11.2V. It identifies 2904B as having outlined text and serp die cut 9.8V.

I just acquired a plate no. strip of 5 that has outlined text and is die cut 11.2 (with 1996 in LL corner). Either the die cut gauge or the outlined/non-outlined text descriptions are reversed in my Scott Spec., or I have a rare find!

Seriously, with 1996 in the LL corner and the die cut gauge at 11.2V, I suspect it is 2904A, which would make the catalog's note about outlining/non-outlining reversed. Am I correct??

I think you're looking at 2904A. While Scott says the letters are not outlined, a close look shows that some of them do appear to be. But the outlining is the same color as the mountain background, so many of the letters also appear to not be outlined. If your strip has a plate number, look for a V.

Thanks JLLebbert.

The strip does not have a plate #; I shouldn't have called it a plate no. coil, and even worse, I should have checked the ebay listing more carefully before buying; it was sold as a strip of 5, not a PNC5; I didn't notice, so I guess I wasted a couple of bucks.

When I do acquire a PNC5, I now realize that the "V" in the plate # will confirm the ID (assuming Scott doesn't have the plate # listings attributed to the wrong stamp!) I have a 2904A pair (with a V in the plate #) and a 2904 PNC5. The outlining in 2904A is visible only against the light background areas but even so, is easily distinguished from the non-outlined 2904.

I was more curious to know if anyone agreed that the 2011 catalog note on text outlining is reversed between 2904A and 2904B, while the die cut gauge info is attributed correctly to each stamp. Whichever info is wrong, did Scott correct it in later catalogs?

It still reads the same in my 2014 Scott ... not outlined on 2904A. Clearly, some of the characters (USA, for instance) are outlined. On the other hand, some characters do not appear to be outlined.

This is my second reply to my own post:

I have examined several 2904 types on ebay, and have found that BOTH 2904A and 2904B (distinguished by the dates in LL corner) have outlined text (as does 2903).

Therefore, I was incorrect in assuming that Scott had the stamps reversed in the outlining note. Instead, they are just incorrect in stating that that the text on 2904A is not outlined. It appears that Scott has the die cut gauge correct for both stamps (at least the "1997" stamp appears to have a more coarse gauge than the "1996" stamp). Once I have acquired copies of each, I can actually measure the gauge.

I'm surprised that this "misprint" went unnoticed/uncorrected for at least 3 years (JLLebbert's note about his 2014 catalog). Am I too absorbed in details? I know it aggravates me when a seller incorrectly identifies a stamp; I don't want my collection to reflect a similar lack of diligence.

I understand your frustration. But you have to realize that Scott does makes mistakes (but not often). In the case of 2904A & 2904B, I think they saw that some of the letters on 2904A appeared to not be outlined whereas all of the letters on 2904B were clearly outlined. Since there was a different date on the two stamps, they simply gave an incomplete (technically incorrect) description of the lettering & avoided taking up space with extra (but more precise) verbiage. In a similar manner, if they think there is no likelihood of two or more issues being confused, they will round off perforation measurements. Take the recent Star Spangled Banner ATM stamp from SSP. Scott lists it as 11.25x11. A quick measurement shows that the die-cuts are virtually identical to those of the SSP CB20 stamp which they list at 11.25x10.75. This latter measurement is the more accurate one, but I think they assume that noone can confuse the thin ATM stamp with one from the convertible booklet & simply round off these particular measurements to the nearest 0.5. But they don't do so with the SSP CB20 stamp because it might be confused with the APU CB20 stamp which also measures 11.25x10.75. Incidentally, I think a precise measurement will actually yield 11.3x10.8 for the die-cut gauge on all of the booklet stamps except CCL. The CCL booklet stamp is listed as 11.25x11.5 ... a precise measurement gives 11.4x11.6. In this case, they've rounded to the nearest 0.25 (although I think 11.5 would make a bit more sense). This "rounding" of perf measurements has always been present. You can find it for much older stamps. I think I recall a forum discussion about a stamp from the 30s or 40s where this occurred.

Thanks again JLLebbert

I do appreciate Scott's attention to detail, so I am still surprised they haven't corrected that oversight yet. At first, I was wondering which was wrong, the die cut gauge or the outlining note. But since the date and the die cut gauge agree in the Scott listing, they must have gotten mixed up on the outlining note. I wasn't trying to criticize their mistake; it's just that they are the only reliable source for this type of info (except for SCF), so when I find an apparent discrepancy in Scott, I tend to assume they are correct and that I must be missing something!