Difference Between A Scott 204 Vs. Unused Scott 185

Hello everyone. I am curious about these questions. I see this stamp often,the Z.Taylor blue 5,including have one without gum unused...Is there any markings clues can look for to assess the stamp which may help inform possible difference between the two stamps, Scott 204 vs scott 185 unused? Is it a tiny dot on head a clue more likely can be considered 204? Since perf.12,can this stamp have a straight edge for one side for a 204?...the scott 181 is hard white wove paper without gum.

I read that only 16 stamps of the Soft Porous Paper without gum. Although it is a very scarce stamp, it is good to know about differences in case to check them.understand that they should be certified. I would appreciate if anyone can answer these questions. Thank you in advance.
Blazenstar

Deep blue 204 vs. blue 185. Color is different.??? I think it is impossible to find a 204. They are all accounted for?
That's all I got... Perhaps someone else knows other tricks other than no gum, and deeper blue color.

According to a write up on usphila.com, with one of the (204) stamps,read there were 18 recorded, one in library. Seigels had one in auction in April 2015. They sold it 6x's over the years. So, could be some out there,eventhough very scarce for the 204. There were all unused and perf.12, all 4 sides. Mine has a straight edge on one side, but unused.
In one one of write ups, mention about a tiny dot on head, so I wondered if that could be a clue for a 204, but not all had it. It would be interesting to know..the 204 is considered a deep blue..the photos are shown on that site. It is also on philatelic foundation certs.can see it as well.

Mine is a 185. The colors come without gum with Zach Taylor 5 cents: bright blue for Scott 181,this is special printing of the l875 issue,(Scott 185 blue including has used copies) and Scott 204 dark blue for soft porous paper. I am wondering if the shade in outer area of circle has to be a deeper blue.

This is why it is strange to me with colors. I am going to show 2 zach 5 cents.. one mint,i believe is probably a scott 185, and the other used with not full vertical perfs on right side. This stamp has a bullseye cancel..the blue color is different however,without gum in back as well..so only can be another 185 since it is used. it is a different shade. What color is the used one?

The first stamp may have been chemically washed in an attempt to remove a cancel and fake a 204. I can see evidence of cancel ink on the perfs at top left and bottom. The chemical that was applied also washed out the color. If true, it cannot be considered mint. It is a used altered stamp.

The second stamp is blue. I see nothing unusual about it as a 185. These stamps vary in color from deep blue to bright blue to plain blue and this one looks typical in the center of the blue spectrum. It is without gum merely because it was soaked from a cover.

I agree the first one is not mint, I don't know what you seem surprise to see a cancelled stamp with no gum, unless it's a CTO

no..it was sold as an unused..there is a tint of blue, no kightcancellations noted.. do any of you know if the tiny dot on head is a clue for 204? I come across many of them and like to know for future references..at least correct that second one is a used 185

i said before the colors are different. the second used is what a 185 blue looks like more than the unused one.

Don.. I think you may be correct, could have been washed and have this effect. I am going to let another stamp dealer view it face to face and get his opinion, if color washed ect. don't like something sold to me claiming mint instead being altered.

thank you both, but still wondering if the tiny dot on hair in forehead which shows in real genuine photos a clue for one to be a 204.

Not sure what tiny dot you are seeing, but it is either an ambient printing anomaly (stray dot of ink) or a consistent transfer variety which will appear on any impression from that plate.

No such mark is a clue for differentiating the Special Printing since that was not printed from special plates. Other stamps from the same plate as the SP also exist.

The way the provenance of the SP is established requires being able to confirm that an example was originally purchased as such from the Post Office Department by special order. Candidates must correspond with the reference examples, such as the authenticated reference examples at the PF.

If you think you have one, you MUST submit it to one of the expert agencies for certification prior to attempting to sell it. Otherwise it will not be recognized.

it was not on the stamps displayed here. read it on one of the former sold by Seigels..can see write up on usaphila..(204)..I saw alittle dark spot and thought had to do something with the plate.. of course it was P.F. that must have done the assessment for that stamp. I agree that requires always certs for ones suspected to be it todetermine genuine and correct scott number ect..

it expresses a tiny tone spot on top of head. saw it mentioned twice on 2 different times sold out of 6 stamps for a 204.

Why does usphila.com show up as a high risk web page?

The item with the tone spot in the Siegel listings sold in the 2009 rarities sale and again in the Curtiss sale of 2013. It is the same stamp and not two different examples. The tone spot is not a printing variety it is a defect, probably original to the paper. Both times it is reported it realized the same figure, which is well below the numbers for other 204 items that sold about that time or later. That tells you that you are focusing on a defect in the stamp. It will help you recognize that particular example whenever it surfaces, but it will not help you recognize other examples of #204.

I'm curious. What's the fascination with #204? Money?