Gum Variants For #2191?

I see some listings for the $0.65 Arnold stamp on bidstart for "dry gum." Are there recognized gum variants for this stamp? If so, where could I get more information about them?

While I'm hoping someone can answer my original question, here's a curious thing. I wonder how common something like this is?

The stamp was issued in 1988. The announcement in the Postal Bulletin, and the USPS Souvenir Page for the issue, both state that it will have a Copyright 1988 notation as a selvage marking. But the selvage marking is actually Copyright 1986. Now as this appears on all panes (that I know of), it is not an "error" as such. But I wonder if it might be significant? According to Linn's Yearbook for 1988:

I was unable to find any reference to this "unveiling" in the Postal Bulletin. A Google search turned up this reference to a celebration of the 100th Anniversary of Arnold's death:

http://articles.philly.com/1986-06-...t-hap-arnold

But no mention is made of unveiling the stamp. If anybody's search-fu can dig anything more up about this, I'd sure like to know.

But meanwhile, could any of this explain the Copyright 1986 date in the selvage margin? There is also this, a publicity photo signed by the designer which also shows a 1986 copyright:




Does this indicate that all the design was likely completed with the "unveiling" in 1986?

Basil

All Hap Arnolds have dull/dry gum. Can't help you with the other info.

blcjr, if it helps, some if not most of the stamp issues so far this year have 2015 copyright printed on it.

Peter

Chris Calle is going to see if he can dig up any thing on it from what he has. He implies the design was done in 1986, and that might explain it. It doesn't explain why the USPS would get it wrong in the Postal Bulletin or USPS Souvenir Page. We may have to ask Murphy about that.

Basil

JLLebbert, that makes sense, and explains why there are no "variants."

blcjr, some of the early stamps in this series were addressed in "The Plate Number", a magazine edited by Stephen Esrati in the late 80's and early 90's. The complete set is available on http://pnc3.org . I do not know if the 65 cent Hap Arnold was addressed.

Peter

Peter,

I skimmed a few issues of "The Plate Number," and it is dedicated to coils. I didn't see any of this series (The Great Americans) and while I only collect a handful of stamps from this series, I don't think many, if any, were issued in coils. Not the Arnold stamp, anyway. Thanks, though.

Basil

You did not go far enough. If you check the last one you will note the name has changed to include the Great Americans. There is a lot written about the Great Americans! Especially in the last year.

Peter

The U.S. Specialist ran a 12 part series in 2006 about the varieties of the Great American series - gum, tagging, paper, etc. The only Arnold listings included are the normal stamp and the untagged error. Quite a few of this series were designed far before their issue date, and early press release photos of some are undenominated, then the later re-released photos show the value added. I have seen the Arnold press photo only in the final version as you have above.

Basil: You are correct that there weren't many coils in the Great American series. In fact, there were none. There was a single booklet stamp, the 25-cent Jack London (Scott 2197). I think most of the series was issued in panes of 100, although there were a few (at least 6 that I know of) printed in panes of 20.

Chris Calle sent me this, as the version that was unveiled in 1986:



John, thanks for pointing me to the U.S. Specialist series on the Great American stamps. It was written by the former editor of The Plate Number and probably overlaps and completes what Peter was referring to.

Something else of note, when originally assigned a Scott number, this was 2192. Sometime during the 1990s this section of Great Americans was renumbered and Hap Arnold became 2191 as it is today. Which would make a difference in older stocks or researching literature references. (In fact my own antiquated stock book still has it as 2192.)

John,

That explains what I saw in my older copy of Durland's. It had 2192. The previous owner had penciled in the correct number, but I didn't stop to think about why Durland had it "wrong." I could probably use a more current version of Durland's. As I was concentrating on older U.S. Airmail stamps at the time I acquired it, I wasn't concerned at how "out of date" it was. It is a 1990 edition, so published just a year or so after the stamp would have first appeared in Scott's.

Basil

I was tipped off to the Scott renumbering through the US Specialist. Two brief mentions of the Arnold stamp are made there in 1989 and indexed in the March 1990 issue as 2192, which threw me for a bit. (My Durland is also a 1990.)