Scott 78c, 24c 1861 Blackish Violet

Thank you, funcitypapa and Don!

I've owned Seigel census #18 and #44 and three others certified as 78c, and I STILL can't differentiate between dark, blackish shades that will certify as Blackish Violet versus the Dark Lilac. And I once viewed a #78c on cover, certified, that was paler than a dozen #78's I have and with no discernable color, just a brownish gray.




Regarding the above images, taken off the PF website, the left stamp is Dark Lilac and the right one is Blackish Violet, I see no difference whatsoever. I wouldn't fork over much of a premium for a stamp that can have so little color differentiation from the common shade.

I totally agree, Tipzi. If we add what Richard wrote, it seems not possible to tell a blackish violet - today - from other colors using a reference collection. So at the expertising organizations there must be other ways to decide this, for example looking at the color under high magnification and seeing some deciding factors there. What could this be? Ink dots, different absorption of the color in the fibers? Just looking at the stamps' colors like this can't help.

Colors are subjective and there are a number of other non-objective factors in how human view colors. For example scientists often point to 'color constancy'; this is where our brain's expectations overrides the actual color of the item. In other words, when you look at a lemon your brain tells you it should be yellow and this influences the color you 'see'. We interpret colors as stable and unchanging, regardless of the effects of colored illumination as this demo clearly shows
https://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements...ception.html
Don

Very impressive, Don. But that's just the advantage normally of a reference collection, that you don't have these effects, as you compare the stamps side by side under the same environment. If you really know that one stamp is the real color and the other has to be checked, you can do it with a good eye. For example, bluish part can normally see quite well. in the two last stamps above I don#t see a difference, as Tipzi, or at least the one on the right is not more blackish (maybe a bit darker, but not more or less bluish or violet). For the 3c 1861 pink stamps I read it helps to look under magnification if you see any other ink parts speaking for rose (=red). So I asked if this could be the case for the 24c?

Question: If, as has been stated a few times, the defining characteristic of 78c's is their blackness, why is the stamp called "blackish violet"? Where does the violet factor in? Also, since the violet color is considered a sub-type of 70 (70c), and all other 78s are some shade of lilac, why isn't 78c called "blackish lilac"?

Something else to consider: given what's been said in this thread, does everyone reject the examples portrayed on this web site?
https://www.theswedishtiger.com/78-scotts.html

I just came across the stamp on the right below. Next to it I put a stamp I feel pretty good about being a 70: red lilac.

The stamp doesn't look black in person, but I'd certainly say blackish with a violet tinge. I guess I know what the answer will be. Send to the PF, or we can't tell with a computer image. I know, but interested to hear if there might be any other insight here.

This stamp is not a certified #78c but it illustrates a quality of the blackish violet stamp. Note that as black and heavy as the cancel is, Washington's coat is as dark. Compared to the black cancel, the stamp ink has some color. This is what you look for in a #78c to start with.

If that's the case then the stamp I posted is definitely not that. I don't think it's a #60 or 70c, those don't seem to be this dark. Dark Lilac on Siegel looks quite black too, as someone else said.

So that leaves the possibility that it's just a very dark red lilac I guess? I think if there is any one issue that will drive me insane it's the 24c.

rlsny, I think you're right about dark red lilac.

70c is supposed to be on thin paper...that gets overlooked a lot, but I think it's pretty hard to fake or mistake thin paper.