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!

Beautiful Example Of Scott 205c.

Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 28 / Views: 1,436Next Topic
Page: of 2
Valued Member
United States
51 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   4:24 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add StampNube to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
A nice find in the old family collection. I'm glad my grandfather gave me the opportunity to experience phillaethy. So much to learn


Send note to Staff

Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
6408 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   4:27 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rogdcam to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Not 205c.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
51 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   4:33 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add StampNube to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thats why my name is stamp nube. Still loving the stamps. I thought without gum was a 205c
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
668 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   7:35 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Parcelpostguy to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Difference between 205 and 205C is not a lack of gum rather the quality of the paper it was printed on, a soft porous paper.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1509 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   7:43 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Genuine examples of 205C never had gum, but gum can easily be soaked off of any stamp from that era (collectors from generations ago were often advised to soak the gum off their 19th century stamps to avoid paper damage over time). Can't tell from your photos whether the stamp has been used (no used examples of 205C are known), but given that there are only 23 recognized genuine examples of #205C I would assume that you have a regular #205. You can never go wrong by assuming that you have a common stamp rather than a world-class rarity.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1509 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   7:56 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Difference between 205 and 205C is not a lack of gum rather the quality of the paper it was printed on, a soft porous paper.


Both were printed on the same American Bank Note Co. soft paper. The difference appears to be in the color and/or quality of impression.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
668 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   8:49 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Parcelpostguy to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
Both were printed on the same American Bank Note Co. soft paper.


You statement contradicts Scott and its paragraph of explanation under the 205C listing. Many stamps sold as a special printing of 205 were in fact only the normal 205 stamp misidentified. Only a small group of true 205C special printing of 205 were available via the small quantity provided to the 3rd Asst Postmaster General. There are currently only 22 certified mint copies and no known used copies certified. The supply sent to the 3rd APG were sent before the normal 205 and reported 2463 so-called special printings were available. This note does depart from Special Printing note 1 in the Identification of Definitive Issues section. Also 205C seems to be the only special printing issue with such a note departing for the general SP Note 1 comments.


Bottom line, special printings need a certificate and part of certification of new example requires comparison with know certified copies. As to 205C 2463 copies sold as "special printings" were in fact not special printings.

Now if you want a purported 205C used there is one being offered now on eBay from a seller in Hungary who describes it as in "perfect condition" without consideration of the small tear by pulled perfs.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
6408 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   8:55 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rogdcam to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
A 205c will have a sharper impression than a 205 (it was printed on a steam press) and it will be well centered.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1509 Posts
Posted 05/05/2021   10:22 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
You statement contradicts Scott and its paragraph of explanation under the 205C listing.


Not in the least. Both 205 and 205C are listed by the US Specialized as being printed on "soft porous paper." In fact, the explanatory paragraph says nothing (at least in my 2019 edition) about how to distinguish between the two. The information in this paragraph comes from William Mooz's 1992 article in the CHRONICLE.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
265 Posts
Posted 05/06/2021   12:29 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Dry Tech to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
My 2014 Scott catalog says the 205c is grey brown, as opposed to yellow brown for 205. I didn't see anyone mention this so maybe I had better get a more up to date catalog? Or is the color difference so minute as to not be valid anymore?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
6408 Posts
Posted 05/06/2021   07:37 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rogdcam to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The 205c color can really run the range. The Scott note is really unhelpful.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1509 Posts
Posted 05/06/2021   08:35 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
My 2014 Scott catalog says the 205c is grey brown, as opposed to yellow brown for 205


There are also brown and gray brown colors listed under the main listing for #205 in the US Specialized. In his 1992 article "Why Is This Stamp Rare?" Mooz mentions (citing Luff) stamps of a reddish-tinged brown as opposed to grayish-tinged brown as being part of the early small-batch delivery of special printings.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
265 Posts
Posted 05/07/2021   4:55 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Dry Tech to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Good info from you both and I should have read the listing more carefully.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
184 Posts
Posted 05/07/2021   5:14 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Tipzi to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply


I took the liberty to borrow images off Siegel's fantastic site. The left stamp is a #205 and the right stamp is a #205C. Both stamp images are from the same sale, so the stamps should share the same camera, lighting and filter settings. As you can see, the #205 can look exactly like the #205C. In fact, this particular #205C specimen appears to have slight toning that gives it a brownish yellow cast, making the regular #205 appear the fresher stamp. It's not the paper or the shade or the impression that sets them apart. It's provenance, pure and simple. That said, the #205 can appear in a range of shades and impression qualities.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by Tipzi - 05/07/2021 5:15 pm
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
6408 Posts
Posted 05/07/2021   5:39 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add rogdcam to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Tipzi - I have to disagree with you. The 205 you show is indeed a beautiful stamp. Well centered and crisp impression. It is not exemplary of most 205's however whereas the 205c will always have a strong and crisp impression and will invariably be well centered. Centering and impression are characteristics and the Philatelic Foundation agrees.

See the article by William E. Mooz in The Chronicle, February 1992. His research provides strong evidence that the stamps recognized as Scott 205C are a small part of the 2,463 sold as Special Printings through the Third Assistant Postmaster General's office, and that regular issues were used to fill the backlog of orders for the 5c Garfield.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
184 Posts
Posted 05/07/2021   5:52 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Tipzi to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply


Here's a cute one. The left stamp closely resembles, shall we say, the #205C Special Printing. The right stamp is the Reddish Brown copy that Luff noted in his 1902 book as being accompanied by a note from the Third Assistant Postmaster General as having been transacted on February 10, 1882 - two months before the regular issue date of April 10, 1882. As you can see, the right stamp has a good amount of raspberry in it (though the scanner is somewhat overstating the color) and shows all the diagonal shading lines in the vignette. Further, the paper, even with the stamp having gum, is a bright white.

Mooz quipped that if this stamp ever surfaced it might be accurate to assign it a catalogue number of its own - 205Ca. Well, here it is! It has transacted many times since 1902 but it wasn't until Mooz published his research in 1992 that philately understood that the Special Printing was ordered by the Third Assistant PMG BEFORE the regular issue. 5000 were paid for in February and another 5000 in March. over 300 are recorded sold, but many more, like this one, were likely given away to dignitaries.

This stamp's existence poses a problem for #205C. It is probably the only Banknote Special Printing having documentation of where and when it was issued. It also has a different color than the accepted 205C, a different paper from the accepted #205C, a different impression than the accepted #205C, AND is gummed! So, how did all the accepted Scott #205C's become the accepted Special Printings?

I think Mooz is correct that most orders of #205C were filled with the ordinary stamp. But I think that's only part of the story. What I think actually transpired was that the ABNC sent along whatever stamps they had on hand in early February of 1882 as a stopgap to allow the Third Assistant PMG to ration them out. Mooz records many orders for the new Garfield stamp only partially filled prior to April. I think all the stamps issued prior to April of 1882 were from a printing of a few hundred reddish brown stamps on bright white paper, of a complete impression and gummed, like this one.

The ABNC's first task was to issue the regular Garfield, which was several months late in getting out. Only after the millions of regular Garfield stamps were printed for general distribution did ABNC set about fulfilling the Third Assistant PMG's order of 10,000 stamps, which were printed from a cleaned, yet worn business plate, likely on a proofing press away from regular stamp production, and with the same ink and paper as the first regular printing. These would include all of the recognized #205C Special Printings, which is why some of the regular issue can so closely resemble the Special Printing.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by Tipzi - 05/07/2021 6:08 pm
Page: of 2 Previous TopicReplies: 28 / Views: 1,436Next Topic  
Next Page
 
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 0.19 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05