Scott 1414 Vs 1414d - Does Anyone Have Pictures Of Each Type?

Just curious if anyone has some pictures of type 1 and type 2 of this stamp. I would like to see the differences with the softer, blurrier impression.

Type I (Scott 1414): This is the first printing. It is characterized by a slightly blurry impression of the image and "snowflaking" (white spots) in the blue sky area. This type typically lacks gum breaker ridges.
Type II (Scott 1414d): This is the second printing. It features a sharper, cleaner impression and lacks the "snowflaking" in the sky. Additionally, Type II has shiny paper and vertical and horizontal gum breaker ridges (intentional indentations in the gum on the back

I have a used copy that appears to have snowflaking, but also is very shiny in my opinion.

If anyone has both types I would genuinely appreciate a photo upload so we can see the differences.

You can see photos of both on ebay.

Yeah I checked there.

There was only one listing. They claim to have both types as well as both types with a pre-cancel. Nothing was labeled, and the stamps looked exactly the same.

I also googled around before posting and the only other thing I could find was very low resolution photos from Jim's (?I think) album pages.

Hence why I asked here if anyone had a few minutes to upload better quality photos.

I also have a hard time trusting random schmucks on ebay. I bought an example of wet vs dry printing and received two dry prints verified by making paper thickness measurements with micrometer

Here are the images from Jim's Stamps Album just so people can see what is being discussed.
Not the high res requested but maybe someone can assist now that there is a visual posted.
It may trigger the response you are seeking.
1414d is on the right.


1414d

From memory, I seem to recall the differences being obvious. Pretty sure I have both types. I will check when I get home and post pictures.

This is posted on a certain website:



It suggests the snowflaking is very difficult to see and the gum breaker is not helpful for used examples.

You need to improve your ebay searching. How did you botch the search?

For 1414, 590 returns, hundreds of which were 1414; for 1414d, fewer returns but still many by just searching what it was that you wanted. See images below.

Your word description above, is enough to tell the items apart without seeing the gum breakers on the back.




Edited to add: Soaking a used 1414d will likely alter the image to look similar to a 1414.

Before you play with used (soaked) copies, learn the differences with the mint examples.

Also by the time an image is posted here, it has been altered to some degree. If you pull directly from ebay you can then enlarge the images on you computer (not phone) for better study.

Plus, your comments such as, "I bought an example of wet vs dry printing and received two dry prints verified by making paper thickness measurements with micrometer" is just, is just, ah....

Hard to believe that they call-out these as the differences when the letters of "Christmas", "US" and the "6 c" are glaringly thinner on the 1414d as shown by rainrainbow.

Is it just me or do the side by side pictures posted by rainrainbow seem to be reversed. To my eye, the stamp on the left is much more sharp. Look at the basket. I've seen much heavier flaking than what is shown, no matter which side claims to be the 1414. A big problem with these stamps is that many of them are printed so badly (colors are shifted) that they all look blurry. I'll be posting a handful that I have. The ones that I have that are unused have no gum breakers, so by the book, they must be 1414.

These are all unused with full gum. The gum is totally smooth. These must therefore be #1414, right? Some happen to be more clear than others. The degree of flakes also varies

Just look at the thickness of the lettering.

Was going to get to the thickness of the lettering next...

These are two of my used copies. Clearly thin letters on the left. But also clearly snowflaking. How can I be convinced the left stamp is type II?