Clarification On 1556d

Does anyone have more information on this-

Scott Catalog of Errors lists this error as "Dark Yellow Omitted" - 2 reported. The picture of it, contains the "Red Star" It also notes one of the 2 reported examples contains traces of red visible under magnification.

So to qualify for 1556d red must be present, but not dark yellow (the lithographed yellow, not the engraved yellow)

When I did a pfsearch for this, no 1556d came up or anything. The var stamp didn't match either. Same with other stamp certificate lookups, auction history.

Is there a protocol to track down Scott's basis for listing this?

At one point Bill Langs claimed to have one, without a certificate, but his photo had the yellow dots, which I believe implies the litho (dark yellow) was present.

Appreciate any insight into this.

What edition of the Errors catalog are you using? The latest version claims to have been "thoroughly reviewed and updated since its last publication in 2014." Is the error still listed in the latest version?

More generally, US stamps of that era have plenty of color-shift problems, perhaps 1556d is just a result of a few people separately reporting the same problem?

17th edition, which I think is their latest where it is listed. I just reached out to the editors.

I expected that a color omit would have had certifications to validate something as wonky as dark yellow omitted on a predominantly yellow stamp. Doesn't seem trustworthy to make this claim for a Scott listing without discoverable authentication. I will reach out to pseg/pse.

Yeah, that's the latest edition. And I agree that conceptually, there should be verification or back-up for each listing. Of course, every revision to every catalog and reference ever, has come with dozens of corrected mistakes, reclassifications, reorganizations, and wholly new errata that takes a decade to edit out.

Hope you're right about this one, would be curious about the answer they give you.

Did you also check for an APS cert?

Normally Scott doesn't list errors without seeing a good certificate first. For color missing items that is usually an APEX Certificate for the initial discovery.

Now Scott inherited this from the late Datz who may have entered the listing without a certificate but with proper EFO folks signing off on the item.

That all said, when yellow is missing greater care is used examining the stamp as that color can be easily manipulated generally. Datz knew that as did the EFO guys he regularly consulted. In the early editions Datz may not have always had a certificate, but as time went on, he desired such detail as he continued to up grade this catalog. He did track his information to those from whom he received it. When he got better information he used that and its source and took out the prior information. That is why his acknowledgement list of folks changed from one edition to the next. Smith said it existed, later Jones showed the certificate thus Jones' information supplanted Smith's.

For a color to be missing, all color must be missing, not just the quick to see obvious colored areas. Thus from the note, the second known copy likely does not have the top red star present but some of the other engraved red lines still had dots of red color.

I checked APS certs. Nothing there. I will be reaching out to other editors and expertization firms.

Thank you for the reply Parcelpostguy. My take on this, is that if there isn't a cert that proves that dark yellow is omitted with any expertization backing it, this listing should be removed. Without the microscopy level inspection and modern validation this should be treated as a changeling, alteration, or at best a freak level var.

Couple this with he fact that the 2 discoveries of stamps don't manifest in the same way is problematic. It's not as though a sheet was ink starved and others have been discovered, a folderover caused it, or other catalyst led to the stamp.

I am not saying this doesn't exist. But if I look to another similar situation, a C86c, I expect there to be an evidence trail.

This one was the closest, but it was a ochre omitted. A completely different authentication than the catalogs even suggest as a possibility in 1995.

I updated this post to remove obsolete url

In my opinion the lack of transparency for catalog submission criteria is not a good thing. There are plenty of cases of 'good old boy' submissions in some catalogs, if you know the right people you can get a stamp listed. Having a published criteria for submission would be a great help to hobbyists (as would a criteria revision history). One of the challenges is that the catalog criteria typically evolve and change over the decades. Makes things clear as mud.
Don

(Snip -- url is dead.)

Ink starvation on engraved plates does occur and not necessarily in any manner that is consistent across a sheet or web.

I think we are now at the point here that I will make one new to the thread observation. This stamp is known with printer's waste, lots of printer's waste. The amount is not really well distributed information. For example, yesterday I did a search on eBay for 1556, the basic stamp of this thread. I then sorted the listing by price, highest to lowest. The second highest priced item was an imperforate mail early block of six. It was described as only 50 copies reportedly known. Can you guess the highest priced item? Yep, an imperforate full sheet of 50.

Now I do have some suggestions I will not make on the forum (email me) but I do ask why do you have a particular concern specifically about 1556d? This is an academic question with no intended interest in spin, motive or implied comment. I am just trying to help focus on a direction to point.

One other observation about Scott catalogs. While they want to see a certificate to add some type of items, I know for a fact that there are certified error items which Scott has not added, perhaps due to the owner not contacting Scott with the information. Here I am referring to the plate block of 8 as part of a larger block of 233a. Scott just lists a plate number and letter strip of four which is priced.
At time as a footnote in a listing, Scott asks to be shown a certificate.

I see you found nothing at the APS/APEX. One other source to review is the old Schiff Auction Catalogs. If he sold it he thought it was good. If he thought it was good, that is a clear basis for a listing, the man was THE EFO scholar. https://www.americanstampdealer.com...iff_Jr_.aspx

I'm aware of the printers waste, there are at least 2 sheets and maybe a 3rd cutup into parts. There are probably more floating behind the scenes. I believe at least 2 sheets have certs. Those are the source of any Imperfs.

Yes, printer's waste is not normally inventoried for future record keeping when snatched--it certainly would be helpful.

Ok, so in the Scott 2005 error catalog there is this note:

Dark Yellow Omitted LRS (7/97)
Quantity reported unique

This has the note it contains red dots under magnification

I gather LRS=last reported sale.

It was in the 99 catalog as well. So it was definitely added in the 96-99 era.

I must say it's cool these old catalogs are free online.