Scott 1702 & 1703 Winter Pastime Stamp

I have a Sc1703 that is missing what appears to be a church steeple in the background. Also there is no discernable snowflaking in the sky or pond and it is overall tagged instead of block tagging. Is it a common occurence for this issue to be missing only part of the design and to have overall tagging? I can tell that the one is a 1703 by measuring the space between the printing and design. I have attached pics of each. Experts, would it be wise to have it expertised or am I wasting money by doing so??? Note: The 2nd image is the 1703 stamp. Thanks

To my eye the top stamp is printed lighter. I do however not see what you are seeing. I wished you could supply a scan of both stamps, together in one picture.


Peter

Look directly below the "t" in Christmas.

Scott recommends expertising.

General Info.
(Nice to see "Selvedge" spelt so....)
Australian Stamp Monthly, October 1976

U.S. CHRISTMAS STAMPS INTRODUCE NEW PRESS

The Postal Service has announced that approximately 70 per cent, of
the stamps based upon the Currier print, "Winter Pastime," will be
printed on the gravure portion of a new webfed eight-colour
combination gravure-intaglio press recently installed at the Bureau of
Engraving and Print-ing. The intaglio portion of the new press will
not be utilised for this issue.

The remaining 30 per cent, will be printed on the conventional
gravure press formerly known as the Andreotti press and will differ
from those printed on the new press. The most apparent differences
will have to do with the pane format, position of plate numbers, and
absence of some familiar marginal inscriptions.

Sheets produced on the Andreotti press will be of the standard
four-pane layout. The first plate numbers will appear in the usual
positions on each of the four panes as will Mr. ZIP, "Use Zip Code"
and "Mail Early in the Day."

The sheet format for stamps produced on the new press will be
markedly different. While there will be. four panes to each sheet,
there will be no horizontal and vertical gutters to provide selvedge all
the way around each pane.

There will be a vertical strip of selvedge on the right side and on the
left side of each sheet. This means' the two panes forming the left
half of the sheet will have selvedge on their left side of each sheet.
This means the two panes forming the left half of the sheet will have
selvedge on their left sides only and that the two panes forming the
right half will have selvedge on their right sides only.
The five plate numbers will move progressively up and down the
selvedge on a pane-to-pane basis as a result of each full rotation of
the gravure cylinders printing two panes and three rows of stamps.
The plate numbers, therefore, will move with each successive
impression on the web of paper.

In addition to "floating" plate numbers and the absence of gutters,
panes of stamps produced by the new press will be distinguished by
the absence of Mr. ZIP, "Use Zip Code" and "Mail Early in the Day."
Stamps removed from panes can be identified by slight variations in
colour. These differences resulted from use of solvent-based inks on
the Andreotti press and water-based inks, on the new press.

The impending use of the new press was announced by the Postal
Service and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at the Fourth
National Philatelic Symposium last January in Tempe, Arizona,
Both agencies said at the time that there were only two courses of
action to be taken with regard to the plate numbers #65533; allow them to
"float" or trim them off entirely.
Gordon C. Morison, Director of the Office of Customer Programmes,
said the Postal Service after careful consideration decided it would
direct the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to let the plate numbers
"float."

"We concluded that to trim off the plate numbers would be to decree
that nobody could collect plateblocks for issues printed on the new
press," Morison said, "We decided, therefore, to leave to the
individual philatelist the decision to collect them or pass them up."

He pointed out that if the new press performs to expectations,
as-many as half of the future commemorative issues could be
produced on it. "Our removing plate numbers from all of these wouh(
have amounted to the Postal Service saying that no collector,
regardless of his or her wishes, could save plateblocks from a
significant number of issues. But, by allowing the numbers to remain,
the Postal Service is saying the collector who wants them isn't bound
by the preference of the collector who doesn't want them."

The combination press promises to represent an important
development in U.S. stamp printing, combining the full-colour
potential of gravure with the sharpness and clarity of recess
engraving.

The press, when fully employed, is to be capable of printing regular,
commemorative or booklet stamps on a web of pregummed, coated
paper, phosphor-tagging them, pre-cancelling them and printing on
the back if desired, perforating, cutting and delivering stacks of 100
sheets.

asm 19761000

There may be some confusion here in the original post...


Is a descriiption of Scott 1702 characteristics

And Scott 1703 has block tagging and snowflaking. (and the Scott number for which certification is recommended for color missing varieties.)

The position of the lettering below the image can vary depending on the color registration, so may not be the best tool.

(Add: I hate to add something after 6-8 posts have been made following it, but the images belongs near the statement above.
Here are 2 copies of 1702, proven by the overall tagging:



Here are 2 copies of 1703, proven by the block tagging:


Note the variability in the spacing between lower text and the image on each Scott number and between 1702 and 1703. Yes, Scott notes a black vs gray-black difference, but I hope this shows the spacing is unreliable as an identification method.)

I would recommend sorting 1702 (overall) and 1703 (block) by tagging type first, then moving forward with observations.

Ok, I dug out a different camera where I can look at indivdual color spots on the stamps. I now believe both are Sc 1702 stamps. The 2nd stamp appears to be missing the green color where what appears to be a church steeple is located. This stamp also appears to have the red and yellow colors inked heavier making the missing green stand out.

My quesstion now is should I have it expertized? Thanks for all your input so far!!!!!

Image of stamp witht the green color missing.

1) I am not seeing any missing green
2) Is there a point at which the level of magnification required to see an EFO negates it being an EFO?

Again. Scott recommends expertisation.

Your risk :
If it is a genuine 1703, (Combination Press)the Certificate? say $30 (I am not aware of those charges)

Your return...25c

If it has red omitted $500
If it has yellow omitted : not enough examples to assess

Scott does not offer pricing on any used.
(which may reflect the possibility of manipulation)

John described the situation to a tee. So what would be the issue to be certified? I am trying to understand in order to learn something here.

In essence, on a cost basis, the stamp either way is worth a catalogue assessment of 25c
If the rb6179 thinks he/she has a (total) missing red or yellow.
Then this would require expertisation to authenticate.

The Scott Specializes (2017 edition) does not list any color missing errors for 1702, which is what we are looking at.

Got it. Thank you.

I agree there does appear to be a small area in size, less than 5x5 pixels which shows as yellow. On the error-freak-oddity scale this is at the lowest end as a minor curiosity. "Green missing" would mean ALL of the green is missing on the entire stamp. This is clearly not the case here. There were nearly 1 billion of 1702/1703 printed - huge quantity, so there are going to be some natural variations in color and intensity to be expected over many days of printing, shall we say a "Monday morning printing vs a Friday afternoon printing"! I have about 75 used examples of each of 1702 and 1703 in front of me (confirmed by UV), and as an example, I see minor differences in the redness of the sky on 1702 which I believe are part of the natural variances of a long press run.

Add:
Here is the most misregistered 1702 I had among those I examined:

Another way to distinguish 1702 from 1703 is under LW UV. On the 1703 the background ink glows bright orange while on 1702 it is dead/doesn't glow orange. Easy to sort large quantities this way.

To illustrate mstocky's post, since mine were still handy:
Under long-wave ultraviolet light:
1702: top row, dead.
1703: bottom row, glows orange. (also the block tagging is more reflective under oblique visible light.)