Stamp Of Controversy: 1917 Unwatermarked 30c Orange Perf 10

Battles in print between philatelists occur on occasion, and this one is brewing into a battle royale.

http://www.linns.com/en/insights/us...nge-fra.html

I'm curious to know whether members here are Believers or Deniers, after reading it and, of course, after also considering PSE's position. (See "Scott's 476A High Watermark, or Believing in Ghosts" in the May 2014 issue of American Stamp Dealer & Collector)

Believer. I think if one stamp, or even a few, from the sheet did show a very faint watermark using advanced modern technology, it does not mean every stamp would. To me just as a missing color or missing perf can happen to only some stamps in a sheet, it is possible some stamps of those sheets could show a trace faint watermark, while others completely miss it. Secondly, how many perf 10 w watermarks are there that are perfectly clear to see?

Ken Lawrence is a scholar and I appreciate the light he shed on the story in his recent article. Certainly the dialogue should continue.

The message from Ken Lawrence is quite clear. Expertizing should be science, not wizardry. His question about the efficacy of using a Video Spectral Comparator (VSC) is pertinent. No one has done a controlled study to determine if the VSC is capable of finding all watermarks (type I errors) or finds watermarks that don't exist (type II errors). By running some controlled studies, it would be possible to find out.

In the case of the 30 cent 476A, all of the stamps were marked with the sheet position. This means that if the single line watermark pattern is laid out over the entire sheet, it should be possible to predict which stamps would have a P or "U" (since the stepping direction is unknown). Failure to find a P or "U" with the VSC would mean that the faint partial S would be the same as the ones reported on otherwise unwatermarked stamps of the period. Ken Lawrence points out that a study would be to check a large sample of perf 11 unwatermarked stamps in the VSC for the faint partial S should be carried out.

Clark

The crux of the matter depends upon determining whether or not the results gathered by the VSC are scientifically credible and will support the kinds of interpretation so far being given. Ken says that is untested, and based on the situations cited that are still unknown it would be premature to throw in with either camp. If the VSC evidence is discounted, then the day belongs to the believers.

But as an aside I must protest the amount of time spent bashing the opposition. When cynicism rears its ugly head, rational discourse gives way to the APPEARANCE of rational discourse. The dispute quickly degenerates from a discussion of observations into a discussion of who said what to whom - and imputes imagined reasons why. A skeptical generation may find this titillating, but I find it distracting and objectionable to the extent it shifts focus from the material to those engaged in the dispute. It may be a de rigueur Post-Modern, non-rational appeal for those who are not linear thinkers, but I still see it as manipulation. Thank goodness Ken had substance in addition to the glop.

I believe you should use ALL the modern tools possible. Doing otherwise turns the clock back to when the world was considered "flat" and the Sun revolved around the Earth. The problem has always been a question of MONEY!. Those who have spent it to buy something perceived valuable -- and who fight not to lose a monetary investment (loss) when found otherwise.

Hal

Are you sure about this Sun thing? I read (in the New York Review of Books, I think) that a third of Americans think the Sun goes round the Earth.

Geoff

Geoff:

What about Scousers, Tynesiders and East Anglians?

I'll ask those of my acquaintance!

Howay the lads!

not 1917

Nah...we think the Universe can't exist without us though!

Nah ... if you believed that you'd probably believe the moon goes around the earth as well.

GeoffHA -- JLLebbert -- Stampcrow : Thank you for the opening to digress this disscussion-string into further nonsense, which it can easily do on this type topic. I think I'm gonna stop while I"m ahead --- before it gets too stupid…and I'm sitting here LMAO over nothing.

On a more focused note. I am certainly not knowledgable enough to make a judgement. I can only read what others say and try to align with the more credible side.

That people once considered the world to be flat is itself a widely held modern falsehood. It was invented to make modern people feel better by denigrating premodern people.

Most people believed the world was round. Why? Because even with the naked eye you can see the curvature at the horizon.

And while I'm on the subject of widely held myths, at the time of Galileo, the best science favored geocentrism. Even Galileo's own telescope research favored geocentrism but he was silent about that evidence contrary to his theory. THeir telescopes were flawed but they didn't realize it.

He held on to heliocentrism as a hunch and, of course, was eventually proved right but that only occured 100 years later. He did not have scientific proof at the time. Cardinal Bellarmine said as much: right now, Mr. Galilelo Sir, the best science favors geocentricism but if you can give solid proof for your theory, there's no problem interpreting those few Bible passages in accord with heliocentrism. But we won't change that interpretation until you deliver solid proof.

Even today, most people see the sun rise in the morning and set in the evening on clear days. Heliocentrism as theory is counter-intuitive to observations. One has to do some pretty fancy mathematical and observational work to come up with heliocentrism. Helicentrism is true, of course, but it's not a slam dunk for the average person.

How many of those reading this have actually done the mathematics and observations to confirm for themselves heliocentrism? Those who believe in heliocentrism, like me, do so based on the authority of others who have done the math and the science. I am not capable of that, so I believe in blind faith that what I see with my eyes is not what it appears to be.

It would be a good idea to get down off our high horses and stop laughing at premodern people and their "ignorance." People today are actually more gullible and manipulable and less natively critical of information as it comes to them than my farmer great-grandfather was 100 years ago.

Oh, and by the way, on what basis does GeoffHa believe that 1/3 of Americans believe that the Sun goes around the Earth? On the dogmatic authority of (he thinks) the New York Review of Books.

I personally, being a critical sort of bloke, do not believe much of anything I read in the New York Times or New York Review of Books. I am well aware that these publications have a set of biases and are often not credible. But then I believe that based on authorities I have come to trust. Others blindly believe in the impeccable authority of the New York Times and its sister publications.

There's a whole lotta blind believin' goin' on out there, I say, I say.

The past 10 posts are off-topic. Please start another topic if you want to continue discussing heliocentrism or premodernism.