Scott #225 Niagra Falls "Man On The Falls"

I think by human error some red ink from the R.C.M.P. stamp or orange from the 8C George V stamp production somehow ended up on this stamp as all three stamps have exactly the same production date of June 1, 1935. You should call your stamp "George the RCMP on the Falls".

Lithograving, you are correct about the printing.

It isn't a repellex error, but I thought maybe something like it - probably a bad term to use, sorry.

Eg. a few drops of some chemical left on the plate, or accidentally dropped there - maybe red ink - (did they have ketchup back then?)

hehe I like that.

Any other ideas?

I would call it "Much ado about nothing". Keep trying, though. Someday something will come about. Until then, buyer beware.

I talked to a professional philatelist today inquiring about this stamp. He recommended that I send it to the Vincent Graves Greene Foundation to be certified. Once certified he would have clientele that would pay huge money for a stamp like this. So it looks like something has come about already. Thank-you for your interest.

Fantastic! Please keep us informed about how this turns out.

Coinwatcher, don't want to discourage you, but there are many professional philatelists that frequent these boards and none have had any opinion that would amount to a high dollar value. I would question what collector would pay a lot for a stamp like this if it was described properly.

But, I assume you trust this person you spoke with and he must have told you what he thought it was, would you mind sharing that opinion?

If he didn't tell you anything other than get it certified, then I would not put much weight on his advice. If he is just a dealer, that does not mean he is an expert. I have met more than one dealer who had unrealistic expectations on what a stamp is worth.

It will cost you around $40 to get it checked, but if you do decide to go that way, please let us know what the expertization says about it as well.

I am no expert but would value that "nameable variety" with some premium whether it is a wood chip in paper, printing in flaw or some stain added since printing. The man on the waterfall is a great conversation piece and thus has some extra value though maybe not valuable (unless it actually can be proven as a printing flaw) and proof will be hard.

Enjoy

Hello all
Just to add my 2 cents worth on this discussion, I would like to suggest that "flyspecking" is becoming a popular aspect of philately. With the advent of digital microscopes and computer programs such as Photoshop, collectors are becoming more aware of tiny flaws that had gone undiscovered or unrecorded for 75+ years. This, of course, adds to the enjoyment of those who, such as Coinwatcher, are fascinated by "micro-philately". It strikes me that many members of the hobby look down on flyspeckers and others who enjoy the aspects of the hobby that are not duly recorded in the major catalogues. Perhaps those naysayers should review their positions and realize that flyspecking is a legitimate aspect of a growing hobby and that those who enjoy this aspect will hopefully be recording their findings for inclusion in a future online catalogue --- then watch everybody else running to collect the identified varieties!
Coinwatcher --- If you submit your stamp to the Greene Foundation, the fee will be $30. We will examine it under the VSC6000 (the best forensic flyspecking tool on the planet) but I am willing to bet that the outcome will be that you have a "dirty" stamp that is otherwise genuine in all respects and will not be recognized as anything other than a mint Scott #225.
P.S. I do enjoy your enthusiasm for discovering the unusual and your apparent dedication. Keep up the good work and you will make a significant discovery!
GJP

Thank-you very much for your support GJP. I do enjoy looking very closely at stamps as I am sure others do as well. If I send "Man on the Falls" into the Greene Foundation and they confirm that it is actually red ink from production what would this stamp be classified as?
I am having good luck with red ink....here is some more "ketchup" I have found.

A miracle

Since it only seems to around the ink I would think it must be a contaminant in the ink itself perhaps? looks like tobacco? Neat though.