Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

Scott 1055 2 Cent Liberty Coil Tagging Variety?

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 6 / Views: 557Next Topic  
Valued Member

United States
8 Posts
Posted 01/08/2021   3:15 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add who4ever to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
Hello again. What I have here are images of a 2 cent Jefferson coil pair from the Liberty Series (Scott #1055, 1055a or 1055b, not including the imperfs.) I am having trouble identifying it. Here's my problem. First of all the stamps are most definatelty TAGGED. The only 2 stamps of this design that are tagged are 1055b, both tagged-small holes-dry printing. There is one with shiny gum and one with dull gum. My pair definately has shiny gum, so that should be the end of it. However, its not. This pair is a WET print, not a DRY print. I am sure of it. To me, the most definitive and easiest way to tell wet from dry is the sheen that dry print stamps have. They all have it. Easy to see-just tilt the stamp a bit in front of a lamp and the sheen becomes apparent. There is NO sheen at all on these stamps. The other wet/dry criteria can be a little subjective (stiffer, better image whiter paper) but not sheen. If its there, its there, if not, then its not. This is a wet printing and wet printing versions of this stamp HAVE NO tagging. I know this can't be a once in a lifetime find (but I can dream, can't I?) so I gotta ask you all what Scott # do you think this is and why? Now I see Bardo Stamps has a listing for 1055b-Dry Print, Small Hole, Tagged, Brown Gum (which isn't even a Scott listing!) Maybe they were refurring to the shiny gum. I don't know, you don't know and even a professional stamp company like Bardo still can't figure out this listing. So, what are your opinions on this stamp? And while you are at it, what are your impressions as to whether or not this is a small hole or large hole? Thanks in advance.

Dave Schwartz



Send note to Staff

Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
56 Posts
Posted 01/08/2021   7:36 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Jr. Ratfish to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
It looks like a very nice 1055b pair to me, with shiny gum.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by Jr. Ratfish - 01/08/2021 7:38 pm
Valued Member
United States
8 Posts
Posted 01/08/2021   9:13 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add who4ever to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Maybe I made it too complicated. What I have is a tagged, shiny gum wet plate but that doesn't seem to exist.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
22 Posts
Posted 01/09/2021   2:23 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add eagle79 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The solid appearance of the back pic looks like this is a small hole, dry print pair with toned/disturbed shiny gum. The front looks lightly toned as well. Several perf tips have debris as well as the gum. First impression, not having the item in hand.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
175 Posts
Posted 01/10/2021   12:00 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add mstocky2 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I agree, clearly a dry printed stamp. I have that "brown'" gum version from Bardo and it appears similar except yours looks toned. Have you tried different light sources, lighting has a major affect on how a stamp appears. I have a picture of the gum on the stampsmarter tagging DB. Take that color with a grain of salt with all the variables involved. Gene P. In his catalog listed four colors from this variety. Nice bright tagging.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
14 Posts
Posted 01/12/2021   4:33 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add coversRfun2 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
"I am sure of it." usually not a good thing to say especially when asking technical question, it implies responders should shut down critical thinking on that. That might prevent a different opinion needed.
Anyhow my answer is I do not think you will find a wetprint pair image anywhere that matches the crispness of your image, minus any overall aged toning. If the front of this pair was subject to same conditions for almost 60 years as the back gum looks to be, I would not be surprised that any gloss has long since worn off.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
549 Posts
Posted 02/18/2021   2:52 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add 3193zd to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Small holes variety since the spacing between the holes are larger than or equal to the holes diameters. In larger hole varieties, the spacing is clearly smaller between the holes. As for wet or dry, wet printings aren't as sharp as these. Also the back ground on wet printings blends into a blurry or solid back ground.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Michael Darabaris
  Previous TopicReplies: 6 / Views: 557Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2021 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2021 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.2 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05