Is This A 182 Or Possible Reperfed 156-P4?

Stephen-P, based on the images you have submitted and your interpretations of them you are in over your head. Intuition, suspicion, and speculation are not substitutes for real research.

Case in point: in your final image of three stamps you have identified the stamp in the middle as "intermediate paper." That tells me that your sense about intermediate paper (as a "feeling" no doubt) is way off. Why do I say that? If you look carefully at the design of that stamp as shown above, it has no secret mark. It is a product of the National Bank Note Co. and not at all a contender for "Intermediate paper." But there is more to this mistake. The reverse of that stamp has a pencil drawn square, which is a tell that someone thought it might have a grill and was showing its size and location. In the second pic you show us of that stamp there is some shadowing which lends support to the idea that it might have a grill. Hmmm. Without gum an unused #134 cats at $700 down from $2000. An unused #182 cats a $60, and an unused #156 cats at $90. It seems to me that you might want to find out if that stamp really does have an authentic grill.

But grill or no grill, there is no way in the world that stamp could serve as an exemplar of "intermediate paper." The stamp design gives that away.

My point is that your intuition is not a good guide. Decide these things on the basis of clear observation, not the "feel" of it. Use hunches to open questions and lines of inquiry, but do not trust them for supporting data. You might miss more than you ought to.

Absolutely essayk. It was a mistake on my part to write about it so authoritatively before people that know so much.
Wasn't my intention to go against it but just to be a part of it.
I was aware that the records state intermediate paper started in 1873, but based what I see in front of me in comparison to intermediate patterns found online, particularly from Don East's photo in stampsmarter's Bank Note Paper Types essay.
I was being a little rebellious in a sense, which is good in terms of making new discoveries, but I shouldn't nonchalantly bypass established data points that so many people rely on without inquiring about it first as you said. I'll try to keep that part of my mind in check next time.
I get carried away!! Haha

Thank you for taking the time to write that! Not trying to butter you up but I'm truly grateful.. You are a good teacher.

It has one but it's halfway faded, so it's only a 'partial grill'.





The lines of the 134 and this one are lazer-sharp, even in the crevices where soft paper can never complete. Everyone here has valid points, so I'm just going to submit it and let you guys know what they say.

Please buy a scanner.

Stephen-P said:



If you are referring to the grilled item, I concur. Have the PF discriminate between H or I if there is enough for an I-grill. They won't certify a partial I-grill, but given the overall condition this will be a bargain basement project for them at minimum cost.

As for the initial inquiry stamp, those protruding fibers point to a simple #182, but it's your money and your education. John-Barwis (of the USPCS) published research in 2013 (in the Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Analytical Methods in Philately) in which he demonstrated that the essential differences between so-called hard paper, intermediate paper, and soft paper were due to three different types of sizing agent used in the manufacture of these papers. The three papers are therefore quite distinct inasmuch as they have different chemistries, and these differences are readily observable once understood. Save your money on getting a cert for this one and give it some time.

Here is that article.

https://repository.si.edu/bitstream...&isAllowed=y

It's amazing that you two reference this study, as it was the same study I used to gain a better understanding of the the paper types in this 3¢ set:
http://goscf.com/t/83012

Even though there is no mention of 'pelure paper' specifically, it was a great help in determining what the characteristics of this type would indeed look like.

Essayk and Revcollector - Do any of the authentication services apply these practices in determining paper types now?

It seems like an awful lot of work just to add details on a certification that may not affect the stamp's value... and I believe most of these companies rely on a business model rather than a love for the mysteries of the stamps' origins (if we're to be completely realistic).

I hope they do!

I would love it to be the case if they added an option to their submission forms to have a stamp tested with the same voracity shown in these studies.

But the more I think about it, the increase of knowledge regarding 'types' may be a hindrance to those providing services and tools in this field by contradicting what had already been established by the 'experts'.
And I'm totally fine with that. These things should be as objective as possible.