Scott 500 - I Doubt It

I can't tell the difference either.
According to Johl (I don't have a Durland handy at the moment) there were 2 plates used to print both 409 and 499. There are no matching plate numbers from any of the other catalog numbers listed in this thread. However the coils were created using whatever was laying around and could have come from a wide range of plate numbers, some of which may or may not have produced the full type I. We don't have any way of knowing how many impressions were pulled from those two plates, or whether any others were used, so there is no way to estimate how many might have been printed. With billions of 499's printed, there could be several million full type I's mixed in and they would still be very hard to find, so it's very difficult to gauge scarcity accurately. One could look at a few million without ever finding one while someone else might have 100's in a stockbook without knowing it.

Rohumpy... if you have the book, look at the images...
they are extremely different from one another...

Thank you disi123 for answering the question posed. That is whether or not the item listed in the auction is a Scott 500 type 1a. As far as the Full Type I Scott 499 stamp I haven't seen any information that would tell me that it is a rarity much less something to actively look for. Armstrong's evidence is anecdotal, subjective, and speculative. Anyone that has looked through the Scott 499 stamps has noticed different impressions, worn plates, and a multitude of inks and shades. To say that it much more rare than a Scott 500 without any evidence is wrong and the market supports that theory. The reason you can't find a full type I stamp 7 days a week is dealers and sellers know they will sit on the item for a long time. There is little demand, little knowledge, and little interest in such. If you want to collect plate blocks of the Scott 499 based on the plate being common to the 409 & 499 usage I can see that.

The Armstrong book is not the most reliable source of information about the Washington/Franklin issue. All of the type I plates would derive from the original die. Examining a 406 die proof would be the best place to start. Under normal production conditions, the quality of the stamps would be expected to vary. Fresh, sharp impressions may exist from every plate except perhaps during the worst of the war period where dyes varied and perhaps the granularity of the ink particles may not have remained within normal tolerances. Given the shortage of plates, it is fairly easy to understand the necessity to continue to print with worn plates that otherwise would have been condemned.

I don't believe that there is a "full" type I. All of the differences are likely to be explained by ink and pigment differences as well as plate wear. I don't recall ever seeing any mention of another type I die.

Clark

Just to footnote...

There are many whom *still* to this day say the 164 doesn't exist...

Isn't it the color that distinguishes the 500 stamp most? Using photos to try to tell the difference can be misleading. If you can tell from a photo, why hire an appraiser? However, don't get me wrong. I'm all for free opinions here. What is your opinion of these two? They are on covers with postmarks dated 1922 (left) and 1919 (right). The online catalog I use lists the color of 500 as deep pink and the Stamp Manage software program lists the color of the 500 as deep rose compared to just rose and pink for the 499. The actual stamp doesn't look deep or darker, but looks lighter (images in catalog). The Wonder Color Gauge doesn't even provide us with a color called deep anything, except carmine. So is the catalog intentionally mixing up photos?

I honestly don't know anyone (besides you, disi123) who acknowledges a "full type I" and assigns any significant premium to it. But hey, that's good news for you -- you'll be able to corner the market at a very favorable cost :-)

However, I'm not even sure I understand the logic of your argument. So a plate that was placed in service to produce 409's, and (maybe years?) later removed from 409 production and used to produce 499's, would somehow produce exquisitely detailed "full type I" designs? ...and the corollary to this line of thinking: if I find a Scott 499 w/ plate #7322 selvage, it's definitely a "full type I" stamp, no matter how late in the plate's life the 499 was produced?

None of that makes sense to me, so maybe I'm not properly understanding your argument.

I do agree with Clark that (with probably a handful of exceptions) EVERY 499 plate (all 838 of them) produced very strong impressions when first put into service, and the impressions on those stamps would likely be indistinguishable from whatever you're defining as a "full type I."

So...if you were contending that there's an "early state" (or "strong") type I, I'd agree with you...and I'd even agree that "early state" 499's are prettier than "worn" 499's, but I think that's about as far as I'd go. I certainly wouldn't assign any significant premium to such stamps.

The stamps both look like type I Scott 499. There are more differences beside the color.

I forgot to mention it before, I don't think the stamp in that auction is a Scott 500. While the image is too poor to tell conclusively, the "recut" appearance of the button can usually be seen from a distance, and even on poor scans, and that stamp just doesn't appear to have the right "look" there. I'd guess it's a Scott 499. Hopefully, none of the board members bid on it (and if you did, send it out for a cert but don't hold your breath waiting for the results.)

Brenda Tucker, neither of those is a Scott 500 (100% certainty.)

"If you can tell from a photo, why hire an appraiser?"

Because condition is critical to valuation. You may be able to identify some (but not all) of the stamps by Scott number, but you need a competent person to confirm the identity and assess condition.

Have you read this? They (rather than color) judge by the lines in the curve of the ribbon and the button (faint or firm lined).

http://www.vfthomas.com/USpostagest...twocents.htm

The stamp in that auction has one line in the curve above the 2 on each side.

Now I'm more confused than I was when I first read the term "full type i". It seems that srail is correct that plates in their early stages would produce full type I, if the cause is excessive / rapid plate wear due to ink supplies used during WWI. If that's not the cause or only cause, then exactly what does go into a stamp being full or not full?

I have noticed a few other members here use the term ""full type I", including a member named "Tipzi", who I'm not familiar with but seems to be held in high regard. https://goscf.com/t/38105&whichpage...chTerms=full

I can't say whether he or anyone else would apply a premium to, or actively collect the Type. Regardless, it's very interesting and I'd like to hear others take on this subject.

I don't see that any of the stamps pictured here in this discussion are Type I because they all have more than one shading line in the ribbon above the left 2.

But what we see here doesn't agree with what is written on the vfthomas Indentification Guide. We're not Type III because there is only 1 line of shading above the right 2 on all of our stamps. It is just the left side that has multiple lines of shading. This case isn't mentioned in the Guide.

I find stamp 505 listed in StampManage which gives under "type": error of 499. According to the same source, the error of 499 is worth more than the 500, so if we all put ourselves in that category, we'll be rich.

Looking closer, how could a 5c stamp (505 is 5c) be an error of 499?