Line Through 2 Cents Error

Hello,

I searched now for one hour in Google and here in the forum but don't find it anymore. I saw once an information about an error in the 2 Cents Washington (red stamp with numbers "2 Cents 2" A140). In one or both "2" there was a horizontal line. Which error is this and has it a Scott ID?

And by the way, because my literature and catalogues are all older ones: when was the really major finding of an error (perf, waste, printing) of an US classic stamp in the last years? Have there been some major findings (meaning "major" = a really rare stamp). Like the 596, I think it was in the 1960s?

Give up joker! Chances are very slim - it is more likely to win the lottery. Concentrate on enjoying the stamps and learning about them, if something special comes around you might recognize it.


Peter

Joker, are you sure it's a line through the numeral 2? Can't say that I've ever heard of or seen that one but also I'm not a specialist in that area. Are you thinking of the 5¢ error? or perhaps the 1800's series with the caps on 2's ?

The only reason for a line through the 2 would be an official PODept picture sort of like they now print a line through "forever" when announcing a new stamp issue.


Peter

Hello you both,

yes, I am sure (if I didn't dream it) that I saw a photo of such a 2 cents stamp and at least at the left "2" there was a small white horizontal line through it. I just remembered it as I am looking at a lot 2 cent stamps these days. But if you all don't know it here in this great forum then it doesn't exist. That's also good to know.

About the collection lottery: well, everybody has its own way :). I hope it's also allowed to be another collector type.

Even if this variety did exist it does not sound like it should be classified as an error. An oddity, maybe. A printing anomaly?

as always - exactly what I need. Thank you!
So, the dot on 2 and the brighter hair on the top of the head are just printing anomalies? Please kindly confirm. Thank you.

Probably under inked, from what I can see. Either under- or over-inking are fairly common on stamps.

Peter

Thank you very much, Peter! ))

Though I have found no reference to these two particular marks I do like the one in the hair which looks akin to a recut versus the spot on the numeral '2'.

Here is an actual #634 plate variety to look for; named the 'long ear' variety and found on this plate in the position shown





Don

Thank you, Don.
It is so interesting! Thank you for sharing with us.

Aurora, the kind of marks you pointed out on your stamps could possibly be plate varieties (it wouldn't be the first "dot in S" variety on a US stamp), but whether they are consistent varieties or printing anomalies they are not what we would call errors.

In my case it was for another stamp. I just made a photoshop simulation for you :).
It looked like this and I read something commenting like "and there are also these known errors you should look for". But after all I really think that I could have dreamed it because my dreams sometimes appear quite realistic :).

The 596 is an incredibly rare stamp, only 15 are confirmed to exist.

Of the 15, 10 have a Kansas City, MO precancel so, without that precancel, 5 are known to exist. Literally BILLIONS of 1c green 4th bureaus were printed so, last time I did the math, I think that we figured the odds to be something like 1 in 10 million on finding one.

Is it possible that there are undiscovered 596s out there? I am sure there are a couple. But the chances are incredibly small, literally like winning the lottery.

Here's the census of them:

https://siegelauctions.com/display_...s.php?id=236

hello - yes for sure. My question doesn't mean only such extraordinary rare stamps. But as I (like probably many others) only have older catalogues and I just read about the discovery of the 596, I wondered if there have been other findings, let's say the last 20 years. I mean stamps or stamp errors that appear in the Scott and haven't appeared before, or Washington-Franklins that are e.g. not explained in the Micarelli 1991 as they didn't "exist" yet. But many words from my side again :), I think that my found "error" is none and there weren't any findings the last years.

So this topic is done.