Is This A Sheet Of 1703d?

I recently was reviewing my stamps and happened to notice a distinct difference in coloring between my US Scott 1702 and 1703, specifically that the 1703 seemed to be missing a lot of red. I went to my Scott Specialized, and, sure enough, there is discussion of a 1703d with the red missing. However, there is also a major difference in price, and, so, I'm asking the Forum here, is there a big difference in the coloring between the 1702 and 1703? I'd provide images, but I've got to figure out how to get the size down to under 300KB. (My scans currently come in at 2.7MB for the 1702 and 1.8MB for the 1703.) Obviously, if there is a difference, my next step is expertising, but, for a sheet of 50 stamps at $500 each, it would be worth it.

Thank you for your help and insights on this matter.

Alan B

There is some visual difference between normal 1702 and 1703 copies. Minor variations in color registration can also affect which colors dominate and which are relatively obscured.

As for file-size, showing a portion of the sheet should be satisfactory. Specifically, is the plate number absent?

If confirmed, 50 more copies on the market would be enough to depress the price.

You can show affected parts of the pane; hopefully you have access to a flat scanner.

"Missing a lot of red" is not considered to be the error. The red has to be completely missing which would be supported by a missing red plate number. Otherwise, any individual examples that appear to be missing the red may not actually be so.

Siegel sold a strip of three stamps in 1996 which was comprised of one normal stamp, partial missing red and error.

https://siegelauctions.com/lot_grd....emailflag=on

Thank you all for your input. Based on the image redgcam provided, my 1703 is definitely not a 1703d. It is a lot different, though. I was able to crop my images and decrease the images, so I've attached them here. The first is 1703 and the second is 1702.

I agree, your examples of 1703 and 1702 both show a red sled.

Second, the Siegel catalog image is worthless for comparison purposes as the picture is in black and white. Here is a scan of the entire page from that catalog for context:

John,

Thank you for your comments. So any ideas on why there is such a stark difference in the coloring between 1702 and 1703? I might mention that both sheets have been in sheet protectors in a looseleaf notebook since I purchased them, so I'm guessing that exposure to sunlight isn't the issue. Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Alan

1702 and 1703 were printed on two different types of presses. There should be no expectation that they would appear identical to each other. I have no direct knowledge, but would not be surprised if the two presses required slightly different ink formulations for one or more colors.

A better analysis method would be to treat them as two separate stamp issues and compare your 1702 with other 1702's, and your 1703 with other 1703's. I don't sense any light-fading to your panes.

A tad harsh but as usual John is correct and he pushes us to be better philatelists and human beings, and I thank him for that. And so here are some color images that better show the 1703d: