US 449 Or Something Fabricated? But From What?

These are two of my candidate rotary press 2c 10H stamps.

The first stamp appears to be Type I and the design measures almost exactly to the second stamp. In other words, they appear to be the same dimensions. I have also used a flat plate template, happens to be a 1c green, and the design is noticeably taller and a bit wider on the 2c. The second is a Type III and I have identified as #450 with positive single line watermark. The only 2c Type I rotary press 10H is #449. But could it really be that? The color is supposed to be red, but the stamp I have here is not red. The right edge of the first stamp is very rough, so thought perhaps it could be trimmed, but I could not find a possible stamp that is also rotary press and Type I with perforation 10.





I can post more images, side by side and /or backs if needed.

Side by side and the backs. The Type I has pencil notation on the back that says both #442 and #449. The design is showing through on the back of the Type I, but otherwise I don't see any setoff that I would normally see from a flat plate, unless it is very very light. Could a #442 (or perhaps a trimmed 425 or 463) really be this size?

Type I only comes watermarked. And your stamp is type I.

That would be true if rotary press. Are you also saying you think it is rotary press as well?

You only have two choices, 442 or 449, and the answer fully depends upon the veracity of your printing method determination. Can you show us the patient with your template(s) in use?

I created a new template from a #406 which is flat plate of the same design. It's not perfectly aligned, but it's close enough to see that the stamp underneath is noticeably taller and likely rotary press?

The 425e booklet pane stamps are wider than the 425 sheet stamps. Here is a used #425 overlaid on a mint 425e flat plate booklet).


Edit: to add the rotary press coils are wider still. See how the solid wide right margin intersects on the overlaid (used) flat plate stamp versus the rotary coil underneath.


Bottom line, I think you have a single from the left side of a 425e booklet pane that has had the right side perfs trimmed off.

Rethinking my response.

Hi Zebraman. What you said could explain the width difference, but it still doesn't explain the height difference. Your 2nd overlay example shows the flat plate template over rotary with both height and width differences, just as my overlay does.

Don't overthink this. A rotary stamp can be both taller and wider at the same time so the booklet being entered into and complicating the discussion isn't necessary. Your two Scott number choices remain the answer to your question.

The stamp is wider and taller, so it must be rotary. And since it is type I, there is only one choice with perforation 10 horizontally: #449. The #442 would need to be flat plate. As far as color, the US specialized does list different colors than the red (which is the only color listed in the classic). I'm pretty sure the stamp is not red. But, the other colors don't show any values for used. This is why I am skeptical. I've never sent anything in to be certified and I'm not sure it's worth it.

This is the listing in the US specialized. Part of why overthinking and being skeptical.

For another reference, I dug out my only #442 which happens to be a pair. I placed the same #406 template on the top stamp:

How is the width of the stamp (paper) compared to the 450? It looks narrower, which is plausible, but it might not get certified as a coil if it is not the right width. I suppose it could be a 449 with the right edge trimmed off but that didn't seem like a likely explanation.

It is definitely not the same width as my #450. The right edge is definitely not smooth. The problem is that there are no possible stamps that could be altered. All of the Type I rotary with perf 10 along top and bottom have to be #449 according to the W-F identifier on the StampSmarter site. I think I also saw that there is no Type I rotary stamp that could have perforations added. I assume I did my research correctly.

It's possible that it has been affected by a poor job from an affixing machine.