SC 533 Type V Or SC 534 Type VA

This one is a baffler. Per Scott Type Va "The 3rd row of dots from the bottom has 4 dots instead of 6." What if it has 5? The line of color in the numeral '2' appears to be broken also.

Perhaps this will help: www.vfthomas.com/USpostagest.../twocents.htm

Darn hard to measure 1/2mm, though!

For what it's worth, I see four dots and the 'blotch' of the nostril.

Hello Schnibbs, welcome to the forum!
You are posting excellent images. However, other parts of the stamp can help in offset type stamp identification. Take a look here for more clues: http://www.stampsmarter.com/1847usa...ypesMain.htm

Also, every stamp has minor variations. No two are exactly alike. Perhaps what you are seeing is just a "natural" variation. Observing the entirety of a stamp's attributes usually helps more than focusing on just one aspect. Can you post a clear image of the entire stamp?

By the way, this is the row referred to if I'm not mistaken. I often have trouble with descriptions of these differences not pointing to the actual area in question. Hope this helps someone.

Hungary, do you really think so?

Scott (?) tells us for Type V: The shading dots on the nose [have 6 or 7 dots in each of the bottom three rows].

For Type Va: The third row of dots from the bottom has four dots instead of six.

If the row to which you are referring is the correct one, then the two rows underneath it should not have eight dots. (Haha! I count eight at least.)

The OP referred to a line with 5 dots. I thought this is what he referred to. The 3rd line above the nostrils has 4 dots in this image, the 2nd has 5 and the first has 8. Or maybe I'm seeing dots because of this drink.

Okay now that I'm done drinking, the correct description for VA ident is third row of dots "above the nostril" not "from the bottom".

That would make sense. (Hahaha, we'll have to catch you early in the day for advice, Hungary!)

P.S. I have to laugh because I technically see five dots, but one of them could very well be described as a pseudo-dot.

Yeah, I assume that is what Schnibbs was asking about when he said "what if it has 5" dots?

Family,

Has anybody come out and identified this as a Type Va? Because that's what I'm thinking!

Jack Kelley

Jack, I think we're waiting on seeing the whole stamp.

Full scan is not necessary, but would be nice, nonetheless...

The stamp is a Va... there's no debate... both the short line
of dots (4 strong or 4 strong and one weak) in combination with
the characteristic left 2 can *only* be a Va... it cannot be a
Ty V... albeit the V (also has) the broken 2, it *always* has
full rows of dots on the nose...

Additionally, the V is not square... the top frame line is wider
when compared to the width of the bottom frame...

Lastly, the Va is slightly narrower and shorter than the V...

disi123,

Agree. Its the dot count that leads me to believe that its a Va. However, I was unaware of the dimensional differences between the two.

Jack Kelley

OK, here are some more pictures. One full stamp, one lower section, one upper, and as close a shot of the nose dots in question as I can muster. Though I've leaned toward Type Va the 5th dot and the break in color of the '2' makes this more confusing.

Va

I agree with all that it is Va. I also agree that the row in question has 4 "full" dots and one "pseudo-dot."

disi, thanks for stating the keystone (non-parallel frame lines) issue that I forgot about for this variant. We can't see it in the OP's images, but it is a very valid identifier.

I asked for an image of the whole stamp for many reasons. Primarily I wanted to see how well inked the stamp is. Given the new but still small images, the stamp is very well inked. Another reason is that there is a usually not stated identifier of Va that is listed in Johl volume #1 (between arrows of area F):


In Schnibbs's original post, he/she already believed it to be a type Va. The main question was about the significance of the 5th dot. I surmise that those who originally described this variant could not see the 5th "pseudo-dot" clearly.

Before high dpi scanners and high resolution cameras, many stamp features were missed. The Johl description (c. 1937) noticed the break in overall triangle shape of dots above the nose compared to the type V and used that as the qualifier for type Va. The "pseudo-dots" were just too small for them to see clearly.

That is my conjecture. What are your thoughts as to why a tiny 5th dot is not considered a "full" dot? Otherwise, why do you think that the the original identifiers didn't consider this tiny dot worth mentioning?