3c Painted Grill?

the stamp should be #65, but



painted grill?

But? Not sure what you mean by "Painted Grill". I see no evidence of a grill on either stamp. If no grills then both are 65's, these come in a plethora of shades.

There does seem to be an array of round "red" dots covering most of Washington's neck and slightly upwards/downwards. Obviously, in a genuine grill they shouldn't be red nor so round. The only explanation I can think of is, as the OP suggests, someone tried to "print" a fake grill on it? I'm open to correction, as details on grills are beyond my knowledge.

Stamp positively is grilled...

Please upload a backscan...

I see an array of dots that could be grill points, but are vary small points and not typical of normal grills for these. Since I don't see a year date on anything, I can't understand why you say the stamp "should be" a number 65? Is there a cover here, perhaps with a year date on it? If not, what are you using to tell you that, if I may ask?

What is a "painted grill?" A particular type of fake? I'm not understanding you on that.

EDIT: disi/Randall, the stamp is on cover or at least on piece. A backscan won't help.

thanks @essayk, the stamp is definitely grilled, not fake grill.

back side cover


stamp from cover to remove? I mine is it a #94 but grill is nonsolvable

My eyes must be terrible. At first look I thought they were 2 completely different stamps. The first 2 images show a nice flat stamp on cover, the 3rd image looks like a wrinkled wavy stamp. Did you lift the stamp from the cover ?

dittrich again before you even think of lifting the stamp, please show the entire cover front.

You have a well centered stamp nicely tied on cover with a well struck fancy cancel with a clear point of origin. Why on earth would you take the stamp off? Are you able to do that without loss to the cover?

I don't see the need to rush to do the irreversible, when unexplored alternatives exist. The grill is not non-solvable. I was able to see more of it with the camera image, but the lighting still was not right. Too bright and it comes in at the wrong angle. It needs to come down on the image from above not below, and more to the side.

You have not yet given us your best image for this one.

cover to front



@stallzer difference the stamp color is scanning and camera under led-light

few points, #94

dittrich, I'm counting 12 by 16 grill points. Must be a #94 like you said.

i wait, here help only the pencil lead trick... the points adelomorphic. nonspecific pointing up or pointing down, all together

i think first pointing down, but ... #79??

grill is not good show.

Dittrich,

No one faults you for not knowing things, and I have offered assistance to help you with that, but I cannot accept the willful destruction of good material for no other reason than that you are too impatient to learn how to do things more effectively.

I suspect that you did not follow a procedure to merely "lift" the stamp from the cover, but that you simply cut it out and soaked it. I'm sure you don't see that as a problem - more's the pity.

Now you have not only destroyed a fine cover with a nice grilled stamp on it, but you have also made a mess on the reverse of the stamp by dragging it through a puddle of graphite instead of learning how to do it less intrusively.

What a disappointing performance this has been.

Despite all that you still doubt the grill identification because of #79? In another thread raymac gave a nice touchstone for differentiating the later grills (E & F) from the experimental types A-C. Color. Beyond that, number 79 is not only points up, it is an all-over grill. The fact that you don't see that is reason enough to say you don't understand the grills well enough to do this kind of philatelic surgery.

I have to step back. I'm sorry.

sorry, stamp is very clean show top and bottom pics.

price from stamp of cover compared to only stamp. the cover had for me not a historic interest.