This Stamp In The Upcoming Siegel Auction Is A Great Example Of Something Still Missing In Scott

I've written a number of times about gaps in Scott regarding Roosevelt album proofs. Most of those gaps have been fixed in the Scott catalog now. But this one remains unaddressed. According to literature written about the two sets of 5c and 10c 1847 and 1875 stamps in the Roosevelt album, this is what happened: They only had the later "reproduction" dies available. So to make one set look different the dies were shifted slightly to make them fuzzy looknig like a double impression, but intentional.

This stamp certainly looks like a good example of one of the shifted stamps. There is disagreement as to whether this was done for both the 5c and 10c and also how consistent it was. I think there are examples of albums where none of the stamps show the shift. I understand why Scott didn't accept the proposed change there. It is still not 100% clear. But I would suggest that at least the existence of some of these "fuzzy" examples should be acknowledged.

But, but, but there are no such gaps in the recent Scott US Specialized Catalogs.







Now if you think the removal of all essays and die, trial and plate proofs from the US Scott Specialized counts as a gap, I stand corrected.

I agree with what you've written.

One challenge might be how to describe the printing variety.

I'm curious about this. You refer to "they" doing this, but who are they? Why would anyone, presumably the U.S.Post Office Department (?) intentionally want to produce defective stamps -- defective because the shift leaves them fuzzy?

Was this for the 1876 Centennial Exposition, so was the intent to simply put on display (but not sell or have available for use) copies of what would have purportedly been (but not really) original unused copies of Scott #1 and 2? Or was there some other reason? I assume these were never intended to be sold but only for display in some way? Or is that not correct?

In any case, any or all of those facts -- whatever they may be -- might be the reason Scott does not list them, don't you think? Demonstration stamps intently printed incorrectly for display purposes only might not warrant listing in a catalogue. Or am I completely off base here?

DrewM, these were produced for the "Roosevelt album proofs" a set of books made for that purpose conating proofs of the issued stamps.

See: https://postalmuseum.si.edu/recount...evelt-albums

Also -- https://www.linns.com/news/us-stamp...roken-u.html

And -- https://info.mysticstamp.com/learn/...-die-proofs/





In other words, only dies of Scott #3 and #4 but not #1 and #2. Overall the top professionals did detailed work. It was not sloppy but purposeful for what the OP shows.

The Roosevelt Proofs are P2, the Panama Pacific Proofs are P2a in the Scott Essay and Proof Catalog.

Could you post more details about the documentation that suggests that the fuzzy printing was intentional? Was someone just hypothesizing at a theory, or is there contemporaneous evidence of the reasoning?

If intentional, you'd think that virtually every Roosevelt album would have the same fuzzy printing on the "1876" stamps (both the 5c and 10c), but as you indicated, they do not. Most are normal.

To me, it looks like a kiss impression (Siegel once described it as a "bounce print") printing anomaly, a type of EFO variety which I have never seen the catalogs list.

For the record, the blurred printing anomaly can also be found on the 10c, again rarely.

(Siegel sale 984 lot 44)

To answer the question about documents, there are several and I'd have to dig in my notes to find them all. At least one is in The Chronicle, November 2013. I think it is repeating what is written elsewhere. Here's a quote:

The BEP printing records for these and other proofs have been compiled by Ronald
Burns. Printing of the proofs started on January 12, 1903 with Scott numbers 1-4, using a
compound die with both the 5¢ Franklin and 10¢ Washington designs on the same die. To
make the 1847 issue appear different from the 1875 reprints, half the printing was intentionally
blurred. Burns reported that, when mounted in the albums, the blurred 5¢ and sharp 10¢
were paired together as the original 1847s, and the sharp 5¢ was paired with the blurred 10¢ to represent
the 1875 reprints.

Regarding which Scott catalog - the Roosevelt proofs are in the Essays and Proofs catalog. It currently shows 3P2 and 4P2 only. Neither "fuzzy" version is listed.

Very interesting reference of the BEP records, thanks. In practice though they didn't do a very good job at matching that plan consistently, which is perhaps why the catalogs don't list them.

Here is an example page (Siegel sale 1305 lot 2014) showing all 4 impressions un-fuzzy. Arguably the top frame line of the 5c "1876" is slightly fuzzy, but if intentional, that would be the opposite of the aforementioned BEP plan.

Bottom line, if the plan about the fuzzy printing was executed consistently across all 85 Roosevelt albums, the catalogs would be more inclined to mention it and give them separate line items. Since it is inconsistent, they treat them as a printing anomaly. Possibly thinking that the BEP story was made up afterwards to cover over a quality control problem - "I meant to do that".

We may never know for sure.

I agree it was inconsistent. It may be that they tried that method but found it unreliable. But whatever the truth is, the Scott catalog should list them in my opinion. Just as double transfers are often listed for other stamps, it is still worth having some estimate of value. I've seen fuzzy stamps sold as "rare double transfers" and a catalog entry would go a long way to clarifying the situation.

In general, printing varieties tend to not get listed, but since this was both deliberate and potentially interesting, I agree with listing it; caveat how to wordsmith the listing to not confuse with some real printing variety.