Has Anyone Seen This Stamp

Belfastgirl: "you don't have to be an"expert to figure this one out ..just a little basic common sense will do."


Sadly, you don't know what you are talking about and don't seem to wish to learn. All the differences have been worked out and described in detail many, many years ago in the book by Brookman and others. That detailed comparison work is summarized in the Scott US Specialized Catalogue. Not only is it foolish to try to reinvent the wheel, but you need to read the comparisons that others have already made carefully so that you don't end up mis-seeing and mis-interpreting what you see.

The "experts" you dismiss so readily here understand that you are not inclined to read Brookman or the US Specialized Catalogue. It takes a lot of time and effort to do that. So they have been trying to summarize the main points from those sources to bring you up to speed more quickly.

Yes, basic common sense is what one needs. But basic common sense should, at least, suggest that there might be particular pieces of knowledge crucial to proper interpretation even of a straightforward novice's comparison of these stamps.

Troll or not Troll, I find it almost impossible to figure out what question this thread is hoping to answer? Without a good, SCANNED image, then it is almost impossible to come up with the problem and answer. Weren't you going to do some scanning? I am in the market for a scanner, and found some All-in-ones that are quite adequate sell for less than $100. Perhaps an investment is in order?

Oh, and by the way, Belfastgirl. It's a silk purse and a sow's ear.

Partime, I share your confusion as to what this thread is intended for, other than Trolling. It's very similar to the "Unique" thread where the OP is trying to spread doubt without providing a reason for doubt.

Once again, a scanned image will help clear up doubts. Once again, I fear that a scanned image is not provided because the OP wants us to speculate and to cause disrupt amongst us for their pleasure.

Based on the "Unique" thread, it appears that OP wants to create an atmosphere of doubt. She states that she has studied stamp identifying books for a year, yet can't use a perforation gauge correctly. This and many other things leads me to believe that "she" is a Troll.

"She" knows fully how to use a perforation gauge. "She" posted images on the "Unique" thread intended to make us have doubt. "Her" stamp was clearly perf 11 on all edges yet she kept posting unclear images to appear as if she actually had a concern that it was "Unique." "She" is Trolling us.

Perhaps a future pact? No Scanner, No Answer. (Sorry, couldn't think of a better rhyme - at this time.)

I hope this one will be good enough for you to see the difference between this stamp and the A44

The top left scroll is the same on the A44b but it is changes on the A44

The scroll bottom right does not have a fancy tail the scroll on the left does.

The words U.S. POSTAGE
The shading on his collar
The top left scroll

The top right scroll
The beads to the right of the number one
The lines on his head and hair

I think the differences I have mentioned are enough to prove that this stamp in an earlier version of the A44 or perhaps it would be better to call it an unfinished version of the A44 or perhaps a draft.

Maybe this will make it a little easier I hope the scan is good enough

I am NOT a TROLL ..... please stop calling me names

Stamps should be scanned on a "black background".
There is nothing special about these stamps.

Appears to be #156 - #206 - #206

Whats wrong with this scan ???

Can you see fine detail in it???

Nothing special about this stamp but
just to show the difference with a black background.

The white background causes eye strain kind of like looking at something in front of a bright light, makes it harder to see. This is Scott #145. An A44 design.








Ain't nothing wrong with it either! Whats not to like about a nicely centered Baby Zepp with bottom selvedge?

I understand your discomfiture, but sometimes real history is counterintuitive. You have judged the revised version of the design on the reworked die (A44b) to be inferior to the original design (A44), and you want to believe that "progress" meant the designs were to progress in the opposite direction. You do indicate that this progress took place over time. So let's look at that.

If the direction of design progress was as your intuition has suggested, then we should see examples of usage of the A44b design that predate all examples of A44. Although year dated examples are hard to come by from 1870 to 1877, even in that period no example of the A44b design ever occurs. There are however examples of A44. There is a good reason for that. The A44b design was not created until 1881, and we can prove that.

Here is an item from an exhibit I did several years ago. The page is in the bank so I can't do a better scan just now.




This item bears an uncolored (albino) impression of an inscription added to the die when the revision was done. I have a couple of examples of it, and so do other specialists, and for the one cent they all tend to be colorless. The die was not inked in that spot when the proofs were pulled, presumably because the inscription was not meant to be shown. Whatever the reason, the inscription reads in two lines, "Worked over by new company/ June 1st, 1881". You can see part of the tail end of that inscription on the proof in this picture.

This clearly dates this design to 1881, which is a full decade later than the 1c grilled issue of 1870, which does not come in this design. Since the grilling experiment ended by the time the Continental Bank Note Co won the contract in 1873, there is no chance that the 1c stamps bearing the H and I grills were later than this redesign of 1881. The 1c stamps bearing a grill are design type A44, and the redesign of 1881 is design A44b. For details of their appearance please see the image pair I posted earlier.

Therefore, your intuition about the progress of these designs contradicts the historical data. As hard as it is to believe, the design you consider the lesser of the two is indeed the later. Other factors than artistic development of a design will have to be called on to make sense of why that is, but the data lead incontrovertibly to that conclusion.