My Two Cents With Ken 210, 211B

Hi!
Here´s a selection of some of my 2 c Washington 210, and maybe 211B. Color comparison might light this topic for me.

Remember when working with Stamps that are 120+ years old that the color you see today might not actually be the color or shade it was printed in. Many things can happen to Ink over 120 years especially not knowing how the Stamps have been stored for the last 100 years.

You are right stallzer, color fade... Still wondering if one of those is 211B. Guess only certification.

2¢ - Orange brown - 4,300,000,000 printed - Scott #210 - 1883

I love stamps, must be that. Thanks, so no hope for the pale red brown... I have a dozen more, maybe I get lucky.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you want to look at other issues to distinguish the 211B than color. That is, they never had gum - likely weren't used in the post as they were issued to collectors. Paper would be white. Probably more reliable than distinguishing pale red brown from every other shade of red brown.

Hungaryforstamps, you are a genius. But I read on my SC that some stamps were used on ordinary mail, of course just a few. If I can see some 211B will be great for the reason of knowledge which gives such a sweet sensation. I have over 40,000 stamps all around the world, including SC #1 Saxony stamp which I will post nearly day. I made a deal on they because were in the abandon for many years near to destruction. Many of them are cataloged but a lot of U.S. stamps are not, most of them, so I´m in the duty of it. Thanks a lot and maybe I will see a reliable 211B soon.

mestal....
ok...I will bite.....what one is the #211B???

No Kevin, you are misunderstanding this post in particular. This one was just about the different colors so maybe one is a 211B, just tne lighter brown thought from all them, but now I just select 3 which I think might been a solid examples of my colors stamps and its possibilities. I´m asking about it, not assuming I have a 211B. I have been searching and now I think I have a solid argument, so posted a new treat. I think the key is on shadow nape... but I´m asking for opinions. I really aprecite your good intentions and all the help I have been through.

In the 1960s, Edward Willard identified three color hues for this stamp, each of which occurs in various shades. These colors he classed and grouped by period of usage as:


Dark/Light Metallic Red ---- Oct 1883-Feb 1884 & Jan - May 1884

Orange Brown --------------- Mar 1884 - Jan 1886

Brown ---------------------- Dec 1885 - Nov 1887


these three colors correspond to the three shades listed in Scott as
dark red brown, orange brown and red brown respectively.

In this picture they appear as follows:



Top row - dark metallic red/ dark red brown

Bottom row
middle (imprint pair) - orange brown
right - brown/red brown

The pair on the bottom row left is a 211B center gutter pair,

The only variety with this design that became available uncut in the center gutter was from sheets specially printed and gummed as steam press testing samples, and these are the majority of what is cataloged as 211B.

Because separate scans are not reliable enough to make comparisons, I have shown you all the main varieties in a single scan. But now that you see how similar the color of 211B is to certain shades of the orange brown, please do not try to match your stamps to this scan, because that is not a reliable comparison.

It is important to point out that properly used examples of 211B are not believed to exist, since these stamps for the most part were actually proofs. The few examples that might have been prepared as special printings of the other class are without gum and are indistinguishable from the proofs without gum. None have been certified. That any of these might have had gum added and then saw usage would require a considerable burden of proof by anyone making such a claim. As for the steamer proofs which were gummed, the closest thing to a "cancelled" stamp is a pair bearing the handstamp of the Third Assistant Postmaster General as dated and affixed to the stamp contract in the same way as the paper samples on that contract were treated.

I think that about covers it.

Essayk, just courious, is the cancel on the 211B, PF cert. 232150, considered a fake? I'm assuming that since the symbol on the left indicated "unused" rather than used---although the limited description on the right doesn't mention anything about the cancel.

Al, sorry for the delay, I don't get in here every day anymore. As to the marking that looks like a cancel on the stamp on their cert, I don't think they are showing the actual stamp but an image of the photo they made of it which is mounted to the certificate and "sealed" with their embossed seal. On the left side of that image you can see that what appears to be a cancel extends out onto the paper of the cert itself. Since the written description makes no reference to a cancel, and speaks of previous hinging, that stamp has original gum. Given all that, I see no reason to suppose that the actual stamp has a cancel. To be honest, if they had given a cert for genuineness on a used 211B, that would have been rather big news whenever it happened.

I take it the original questioner has departed from this thread. I hope he finally got what he was looking for.

Here is a pic of the closest thing to a used example of 211B.



The mark it bears is a special cancellation used only by the Third Assistant PMG which was only placed on official documents of the Post Office Department. It was never used for outgoing mail or for the transportation of mail at all. It's appearance on this stamps is not an indication of usage. Rather it testifies that the stamps to which it is affixed are authorized examples/samples of the stamps being specified in the production contract signed and commencing May 23, 1885, the date on the stamps.

Apparently thats the one listed as the EDU in the Scott Specialized. If it wasn't actually used in the process of sending it through the mails, I wonder why Scott would treat it as such and give it an EDU status? The Berkun/Siskin data base of EDUs on R. Frajola's web site indicates an on-piece 4/21/90 NYC cancel for a used 211B---I've not seen anything substantiating that though.

The Scott listing came about because an auction house (not Siegel) reported it as you see the listing. They had no further evidence or informed opinion behind their claim, but they were respected contributors and the listing got in. That said, it is a "documented use" in the sense that the marking was applied as part of, or in preparation for, the signing of the contract and served an official purpose. If the assumption that "documented use" implies postal use is set aside, then the argument can be made that it is what it says it is. But the fact that these are official samples not intended for public sale should, I believe preclude that interpretation. I will bring up that point in my submissions for this year.

It would be good to have more information about the item referenced in the Berkun/Siskin database, so I can give him an alternative to the present item, if such a thing exists. Do you have a link for that item? I was not able to find the database at the site, unless it is part of the PhilaMercury Project.

I don't have a link to the item. I don't know how you'd find out anything about that listing in the data base. You could e-mail Frajola, but I doubt he knows. Perhaps he might be able to steer to to someone else? When on his home page, go into "articles" (left side of page) then into "the mercury projects" (first square) and scroll down to Berkun/Siskin and click on to pull up the data base. Its a nice reference source. Frajola will up-date to that data base if folks will get the info. to him. I've added two EDUs to it. Cross-referencing it to the Scott Specialized, there are a few discrepencies, I suppose from not being communicated to Frajola. Would be nice to find out if there really is a used 211B out there. I'd think for it to be in that data base, there would have to be a cert. from someone.