1875 Special Printing On Cover ?

This is a perf 12. I can lift the stamp up part way.
It was put on with Glue on the half that I can look at
Has no gum.I think I see the mark in the ball at the bottom.

What are you seeing here that makes you think it could be a Special Printing?

Blown up of stamp

Very white paper.and the paper not having gum and soft paper

Do you think that its being on cover might have something to do with not having gum?

Is there any chance that the stamp paper seems whiter than normal due to the contrast with the envelope?

Soft paper? The thread title says 1875 Special Printing.

Have you ever seen a soft paper Special Printing (1880) for comparison? In an exhibit perhaps?

The 1875 Special Printings of the Designs of 1873 were issued on Hard White Wove Paper without Gum.

These were issued in such a low quantity (do not recall how many were recorded), leaving the likelihood of having one comparable to winning the lottery, let alone having one on cover.

Your's is most probably not the Special Printing.

Regards
Stampalotapus

Essayk. I have a No Idea what I have. I'm just starting to go threw over 250 years of stamp collecting.
I'm as you could say doing it one stamp at a time.
The Oldest out of the collection is a 1926 Scott Addition
I was told that it was one of the first Scott Albums ever printed.
And that it would be impossible to ever replace.
One part is from a court stenographer that collected
every stamp that came threw her court house and put them in
old ribbon boxes and bags of full unused coils SO ADD ANOTHER 87 YEARS TO THAT 250.
and ya know what I came up with . A life time if Identifying Stamps.lol
I Do Appreciate All the help form all you more experienced
people than my self. But we all had to start some where. Or we would not be on here today.

Take this one for example. One of my favorites.But all I can do is Id what the perf is and who is on the stamp .I have no Idea about the paper or the print.

Kingstonstamper, now that is a pretty stamp. And a great scan! Can you scan your stamp on cover that same great way?

Peter

Peter4522 its hit or miss with me and this scanner. Some times I get it right and than I get what the heck.
I hope some day it clicks .Im not getting any younger you know.
I will give it another try tomorrow. Im turning in.
Have a nice evening .Thanks for the Compliment .

I got the card today in the Mail Stamp Dealers Association of Georgia. Fall stamp show September 19 & 20 you going to the show.

Peter4522, he didn't scan that one. I recognized the stamp immediately, and it was fairly straightforward to find the image he "borrowed" in the Siegel database (from Seigel's 1969 Rarities catalog. The stamp is a rare 1c indigo first design Scott 55.)

http://www.siegelauctions.com/1969/350/61.jpg

So yes, I'm sure it's "hit or miss" with "his" scanner, LOL. But "thanks for the compliment" anyway on the quality of that image. I'm sure he'll be passing it along to the folks at Siegel who did it...

Kingstonstamper....

Ken....GREAT EYE!

Am I missing something? At no point did Kingstonstamper allude to that 1861 1c as being owned by him.




That vague comment with context could be interpreted as if he stated the image was from his scanner. However, it makes MUCH more sense that he didn't recognize the need to point out that the scan was not his. To me it appears that he included that image as an example of how difficult it is to determine identification from an image.

srailkb, good eye, but is a vague connection enough to call someone out as intentionally deceitful? Also, you provide a siegelauctions.com link which provides a reason for suspicion, but no easy method for us to confirm your accusation. Also, I suspect that some of our "newbie" members are newbies to an Internet forum environment, but are very far from newbie collectors.

Those new to stamp identification do not understand how difficult it is to prove that a stamp is anything but the common variety. The default that needs to be taught is that all stamps should be considered as common varieties until they can be proven otherwise. However, I do not fault them at all for asking questions about how to actually identify their stamps. They come to this forum and other resources for help in understanding identification. What is the purpose of this forum if not for educating how to identify the uncommon varieties? Rarities are not an exception that should be excluded from being taught. I truly believe that many rarities lie in waiting to be found. Teaching that they should never be looked for deprives philately of further material to study and more material to be appreciated by all.

Also, many of those very familiar with stamp identification don't understand well how statistical probability works.

Can we default to avoid witch-hunting? Perhaps we should not assume the worst until there is clear evidence to do otherwise?

Also, before the thread devolves into "Troll" name calling, if anyone chooses to do so then you must also demonstrate knowledge of what an Internet Troll actually is. You also must be able to demonstrate knowledge of best practices of how to deal with them.