Great Britain Scott 116, Sg 205/205A

Let me start by agreeing that Scott does a terrible job with Great Britain and many other non-U.S. countries!

Can someone help me with this one? Which is the purple brown (SG 205) and which is the deep brown (SG 205a)? Seems like this could be described easier with the green color, as they are definitely different shades of green. The brown on the outside, on my screen, is much closer to each other than the green colors in the center of the stamps.

Sorry for such an elementary question here......appreciate the help! Ray

The fugitive green ink on all six stamps on the right has been badly damaged by soaking. The one on the left looks as if it's been slightly damaged in the same way. When issued, all eight stamps would have had the same shade of green.

On my screen, I can't see any significant difference in the brown colour of any of the stamps, but I also can't tell you what shade any of them are. The traditional way of comparing the colours you see with SG descriptions is to buy a Colour Key, either directly from SG or much more cheaply second-hand. I don't own one myself, because the study of shades is far too complicated for me!

To add extra confusion, the SG Specialised Catalogue lists three shades of brown - purple-brown, deep brown and deep chocolate-brown. It seems that deep chocolate-brown is very slightly less common.

The Concise Catalogue only lists two brown "shades." The specialised volume 1 recognises three. Both only mention "green" for the head plate. That, however, does not mean all stamps have exactly one of those three brown colours and a single green one. There were more printings that led to variations within those "shade bands."

The "green" of these stamps covers quite a wide range of green "shades." The same holds for the browns.

It is impossible to tell exact colours from online images. The most common mistake made with these stamps, and those of the two following reigns, is that three different colours and three spaces in an album mean you complete the range.


(purple brown and green)

The Inland Revenue required the head plates to be printed in double fugutive inks. When soaked or cleaned, the colour changes very easily. Only the two top left may not have been affected.

The SG colour key will not be very helpfull. It was not made with the inks from this period in mind. Also, they have a shelf life of just a few years.

NSK, is there really "quite a wide range" of green shades on undamaged stamps?

"Of the two colours used for this stamp only the purple varies to any extent; in some printings it is almost a purple-brown." - The Postage Stamps of Great Britain, Vol 3, Beaumont & Adams, 1954

Not only do Beaumont & Adams see little variation in the green, but they also see the frame colour as purple!

This is why I don't collect shades.

Thanks everyone!
NSK, the fugitive ink issue makes perfect sense. I've seen a lot of the yellow color on this stamp over the years....
Ray

pjr

There is quite a range. "Shades" do not exist, they are "shade bands."

The one I posted is a MNH example from a reputable dealer and remains as I bought it.

With the usual caveats about separate scans, used and unused stamps, here is the present listing by BB Stamps. The range is too big to be explained by scanning variation. And I am not convinced all the used ones have their original green colour. One or two look faded. The two at bottom right, I would avoid.

Something tells me very few people will consider the frame colour as purple. Still not even Scott and SG use the same names for colour. SG is not always consistent. The definition of colour is subjective as, apart from technical issues, people do not all perceive the exact same colours.

Considering they call the frame "purple" I wonder how much value I should assign to them seeing little variation in the green. Still, I do not know what they consider "little variation."

NSK,

In the used stamps listed by BB, I can't see any variations in the green that I can't explain by water damage.

In the unused stamps, with one exception, the colour seems to me to be constant in shade but variable in intensity. I'm not sure how to account for the paler stamps. If they're not faulty in some way, why doesn't SG list them? (After all, SG lists eighteen shades of the 1913 ½d green!)

The exception is the stamp from the Imprimatur sheet, which seems to have less grey in it than the standard colour.

It's all too complicated for me, but thanks for the information and illustrations.

The two on the bottom left, I think are faded by soaking.

The majority, however, are mint. Mint stamps are not water-damaged. neither is my unmounted mint example. The deepest dull green appearance is the third from the left at the bottom. There is zero chance that water damage turns a dull green stamp into a deep dull green.

George V shades have nothing to do with Queen Victoria shades.

If you look at Hendon certificates, the number of George V shades explodes. That does not mean that all Hendon certified shades that are not listed by SG are water damaged. SG has recognised there are many more shades but they will not list them.

Also, if you look at the most recent SG specialised listing of Edward VII shades and compare those to the listing from ca. the year 2000, you may note there have been a couple of hands full of new listings.

SG list shade bands, not shades. The width of those bands varies across reigns and even sets. The shades of George V have always been more popular than those of Edward VII, and, certainly more so than those of Victoria. More research has gone into them. In addition to a longer period of use and the problems with acquiring pigments during the war, that research accounts for extra shades.

I've only just recently started to collect some Great Britain and completed this set the other day. I only have one of each...

I notice that almost all of the green-hued vignettes seem faded to some degree.



Perhaps I should keep an eye out for some better copies?!

Al

Stamps that are "damaged" are much cheaper than those that retain their colours. In the end, it is up to the collector whether he or she wants to spend more money on getting better examples, or on other stamps.

I am afraid, I have to agree some of your greens have faded. Your 1s green, however, is not bad at all. Sadly, the bi-coloured one is.

I fear your purples, also, have been affected.

NSK, the 112s at the top are faded, but would the one on the right be a color changeling, from green to green/blue?

And what do you make of the 134 on the bottom. It seems to be the colors dull purple and ultra but an incredibly bright version of both. My thoughts are that it's a later printing- since the paper is thicker.

It does look like the righthand Queen Victoria "Jubilee" is a colour changeling, as you suggest. It does appear to be too bluish. The cancels of the foreign branch are interesting.

My first impression looking at the King Edward VII stamp is that it is a bright blue or cobalt blue; i.e., a Somerset House printing. These had (deep) dull reddish purple and (deep) plum frames. - It is an impression, as I cannot tell with certainty from an image posted online. -

I cannot read what month the stamp was cancelled. Dates from 7 August 1911 onwards coincide with Somerset House printings.

The pencil note on the back could be 'no. 7 prt' but that was a 1908 printing, with two more printings in 1910 taking place, I doubt that can be correct.

When you start looking at some advance collections were shades are part of the collection you will see something like this .

That is an advanced accumulation of washed-out stamps. Only the last three and the one top right are anywhere near green colours that have not been washed out. And two of those would require closer scrutiny to be sure they have not faded. The top left stamp even has a faded brown printing.