Scott 500 - I Doubt It

raymodj---Yes, 3 images on the 2 cent plate were found to be inadequate and the positions were re-entered using a 5 cent transfer die by mistake. The error was not discovered until some sheets had been printed and sent out to post offices. There was evidently a mad scramble to find the error stamps and enough were found and saved so the the stamp(s) are not excessively rare, but you will pay a nice premium for one. I have a pair of a 2 cent and the 5 cent. Just could not afford the block of 9 or the block of 12.(though I still covet --yes covet-- them greatly.)

"...great philatelists *INSISTED* the 164 did not exist"

Again, a bold statement disi123, one that virtually no one I know ("great" and "not-so-great" philatelists) would support.

The Scott catalog dropped the Continental 24c from its listings for years, but that wasn't because "great philatelists *INSISTED* it didn't exist," it was because there was no reliable means to identify it.

...and some "great philatelists" disputed just how many 24c stamps Continental actually printed. Luff originally believed the number was 365,000, a number that today's "great philatelists" have explained (through study and research) is almost certainly too high. Many currently believe the number was 120,700. No "great philatelist" that I know thinks the number is "zero."

I'll humbly suggest you post one great philatelist who doesn't believe it exists so I can learn a little something this morning.

Unlike it's perforated counterparts, the imperf five cent carmine error is quite scarce. According to Brookman only 50 sheets reached philatelic hands, each containing three errors. All others found were destroyed.

I was surprised to learn that Martin Armstrong had so much controversy throughout his life. That doesn't necessarily discount his work, but being accused of selling extremely rare stamps owned by someone else and being kicked out of the APS certainly has me curious.

As far as how respected he is with stamp collectors (I don't like the p word), some googling found that Ken Lawrence seems to have a very low opinion of his work. Possibly only certain aspects of his W/F research. Ken went so far as to refer to some of it as "Armsrongs lies". What others in the APS think of Ken Lawrence is apparently another story, but that's not about his impressive wealth of knowledge on US stamps.

I haven't read Armstrongs book, but have heard from others here that it is a great resource.

So I also have a 7322. Does the collective knowledge here know what other block numbers are as having been identified as ty 1?

sseibert3, I have a year 2000 Durland Standard Plate Number Catalog.

7322 is listed as a scott #425 Type I. There are many many many numbers listed for this stamp. 5 columns, sixty numbers per column. So there are three hundred numbers, not consecutive.Lowest number being 7075, highest 7778.

And I don't believe that completely answers your question, ("what other block numbers are as having been identified as ty 1?") Being that there are other type I stamps other than #425.

You cannot with certainty identify type I or type Ia stamps from the plate number. The two 499 stamps in plate 10208 were in the bottom row, positions 95 and 96, in the lower left pane, placing one of them above the plate number. A bottom plate single from plate 10208 has a 50% chance of being type I or type Ia. For this reason the type I plate 10208 single commands a premium similar to a type Ia plate single. The plate block is expensive. Check the Hebert plate single catalog or Durland. The 406 die proof is still in the vault, so I won't be able to retrieve it until after the Institute of Analytical Philately conference next week in suburban Chicago.

In any case, I have no reason to believe that a "full type I" exists any more than "China Clay" paper or "experimental gray paper" (as applied to the Washington/Franklin issue) exists.

How did some of these ideas spring up? My theory is that someone needed to fill some space in a 1910 issue of McKeel's or some other periodical of the time. The same could be said for the origin of the term "silk" paper, since the fibers are known to be linen or perhaps cotton.

Clark

Not to be pedantic, but you can tell a SC500 by plate number, IF the number is 10209.

From the The United States Specialist, February 1998-page 57, an article by S. Richard Prothero, M.D. "It is not surprising, therefore, that authorities agree that the heavily engraved, sharp Type I impression is most commonly confused with and interpreted as a Type Ia." Dr. Prothero was/is an expert in, and expertizer of W/Fs. This statement is not definitive acceptance of "Full Type-I", however, it is an expert alluding to the possibility. More than likely though, just early ,first impressions of a plate. Just throwing this out to add to the discussion.

Argh. :-D