10c Airmail Stamp (C10) With Plate Scratch Or Double Transfer?

Hello everybody,

I found this interesting stamp which has a line through the right "10". Is this a known thing mentioned in any book? What could be the reason for it?

Note that the color of the (very straight) line goes through the "10" but also more to the left and even to the right outside of the design in direction of the perforation (not easy to see on photos but there is a line right to the right border).

stamperix

It looks like a plate scratch.

This is a plate scratch. There are several scratches and double transfers listed for C10 in the Encyclopedia of Plate Varieties by Loren C. French.

Thank you - that's good to know, also with French's book. I don't have this.

What I wonder about those kind of printing errors or oddities: In Germany, we have in the Michel Specialized for Germany a lot of errors for each stamp, at least until the 1950s. Even very common stamps get a premium when they have a certain error. Two known examples:
Red line on Mi.301 Cusanusstift: http://briefmarken-baumeister.de/ja...tempelt.html
Line at right on Mi.429 20Pf Heuss: http://briefmarken-baumeister.de/ja...tfrisch.html

Concerning US stamps, and the Scott US Specialized, there are (after the very old ones) nearly no errors like this listed. But there are many, as there is even a whole book about it (French). So I don't know: Are these plate varieties (like mine of course...) just not rare in US stamps, or do US collectors just don't collect them and so there isn't a premium on them?

Or are just these errors really rare that are listed in the Scott?

"Errors" and "plate varieties" are two very different things. Double transfers are mechanical mistakes made in the creation or re-entering of a plate position, and are consistent to that position for the life of the plate. Plate scratches occur through accident or negligence while handling the plate. But errors are mistakes in actual stamp production from the plate; inverted printing, using the wrong paper or color, omitting a color or colors, or using the wrong perforations, etc.

Hi, sure, that's not my problem. These words were just used to decorate my questions. I don't find any of those "phenomenons" in Scott so I wonder aboute what I wrote above, just if these errors or plate varieties, scratches, double transfers, reentries and so on are not rare in US stamps, or they are but not premium, or they are premium but Scott doesn't mention them...

..misplacing a letter in an overprint..

stamperix.
Nomenclature is important and avoiding confusion sometimes hard in a multi-national forum. Unfortunately there are also a large number of sellers who mis-represent online listings by using incorrect terms, often contributing to the confusion and misleading collectors. ('Error' is one of those terms which is often used incorrectly in listings.) So folks like to be quite specific in the use of many of these terms. The Glossary in the upper left hand corner of this forum is a pretty good reference.
Don

Stamperix, As you are finding out, the Scott US Specialized Catalog is *not* the complete and final word on US stamps. Scott is a good start, but one must often go to the more specialized books and journals for the next level of detail.

Nomenclature is important and I am not perfect, but this is really not my point here. I wanted to ask my question about all kind of those things, but if I asked on a wrong category, like errors, my question still remains valid :).

Thank you, John. Yes I also think so. But I don't understand why there are really so few "phenomenons" in Scott. Are those not of interest for US collectors, or not rare, or both? In French's book you don't get any valuation. So perhaps these "phenomenons" are just not so much searched for stamps swaps by collectors? I don't know how I can find out how / how "expensive" to swap these "phenomenons" with others. That is normally the sense of catalogue value which is missing for all of these.