Unique US 220B (With PF Cert) Ebay Auction - Thoughts?

The snide remarks are out of pure jealousy but I'm ok with that. My problem from the beginning is NOT whether this is a cap or not. My problem is that everything that has ever been written regarding these caps is absolute assumption. There is no documented proof anywhere as to how they came to be. The fact remains that all 3 varieties were listed by Scott and Brookman in the early 1920's and 30's. So the 220b was just thrown in for the heck of it because it didn't exist? So Rich Champagne and every expert at the NYPF (I was told they ALL examined it) misidentified this cap?
I'm just shaking my head. I'll say it again. There is no way anyone will ever convince me that these caps weren't intentional unless the engravers come back from the dead and tell me themselves.
Excerpt from my listing:
2. In March 2008, this stamp was taken to the A.S.D.A.'s (American Stamp Dealers Association) Mega Postage Stamp Show, at New York's Madison Square Garden, for appraisal.

3. The A.S.D.A. referred the appraisal to member and renowned stamp expert, Richard A. Champagne. Being very familiar with the 220 Cap on Right 2 legend, but of course never having seen one, he was very skeptical at first. However, after careful examination, to his surprise, Mr. Champagne found this stamp to be genuine. He advised taking the stamp immediately to the Philatelic Foundation in New York (chartered in 1945 by the University of the State of New York) to be certified.

4. Following up on the advise of Mr. Champagne, this stamp was brought to the Manhattan office of the Philatelic Foundation to be certified. It was examined by a team of P.F. experts before being deemed genuine for certification. In its 65 year history, the P.F. has had only two other submissions for certification of a 220 cap on right 2, but these submissions were deemed Not Genuine. Therefore, making this stamp the very first and only known certified, used cap on right 2, in existence today.

I don't need any further proof that this is a genuine cap.
I think people need to stop asking me, "Where's your proof that they're intentional", and start showing me absolute documented proof that they are NOT. All I've heard thus far are other theories.
I've covered everything I need to in my listing.
Read it or don't. Believe it or don't.
I still own it.

The prior comments have not been snide in the least. Of course, in postings on an anonymous internet discussion board, assertive comments can be expected. This dialog was not started by you, but having chosen to participate in it, you're going to have to show some thicker skin. If it's not your cup of tea, fine, but others will remain interested in what this item is, and what it is worth.

These commenters are properly approaching this philatelic item from a scientific viewpoint. You have proposed a hypothesis on the nature of this item. The scientific philatelic method is to see if that hypothesis can be disproven.

USSS Research Paper #22 (2014) takes the position that the "cap" on the right "2" is not a relief break but an inking flaw, saying this:




H. M. Sollenberger, "A Census of Relief Breaks on the 1890 Two-Cent American Bank Note Company Issue," US Stamp Society Research Paper #22, May 2014.

This suffices, for me, as proof that this is not an intentional mark. I am not concerned about the listing of 220b by Scott in the 1920s-1930s. The information base and level of scholarship available then was different.

The hypothesis of Sollenberger that this could be a plate variety would be consistent with the PF certificate's designation of "var". If so, the market will determine whether such an anomaly has any unusual value. I expect it will be treated as a flyspecking variety and not as a major rarity. I reiterate my request for a link or the listing number of the 2008 auction in which you bought this item. It's part of the factual record that is relevant to this discussion.

Hello, my name is Denis, I'm from Brazil. Last week did two posts about this stamp (I need to remove one of them, because they are similar).

In my post I was asking initially for help about the relief breaks on numeral 2, after the post...I started to look carefully my stamps and I found another more interesting with a dot in the lower right side, and I put this one in the post too.

Several people gave their opinions, two of these people here on the forum gave me very good information and encouraged me to research.... and was what I did.

I contacted the US Stamps Society and they put me in touch with Dr. Harold M. Sollenberger personally.
Just as information for people interested in this seal 220, Mr. Sollenberger has been studying this seal for 50 years and the research cited above, is part of the material that he is creating. I had access to part of this material and sincerely I believe that will be the best published material on this stamp, I believe that even after that, release catalogs will add other varieties and maybe even change values.

My intention here is just to inform you that there is much information to be available in the future on this stamp yet. We know that the stamp with the cap is relatively easy to find, few with certificate, but each one has its price, and each one buy what think that is right… in my search here at home I also found one with the cap ... if I I want to sell it for $ 10? No.
I appreciate the cooperation of the people here in the forum, I have learned a lot and know great philatelists.

I sense that the hoped-for discussion may be headed for oblivion. If Philatelic Rocker is out, so am I.




Basking in a bit of Post-Modern skepticism, are we? To what end? Linear deductive reasoning is a long way from speculation, and not to be dismissed in favor of intuitive leaping. I submit that for physical matters of this kind, critical analysis is the surest way to understand the mechanics of the questions were are pondering here.





The same sentiment was expressed at the turn of the 20th century with respect to flying. Nonetheless, my wife and I will wing our way to New York within the month to attend the International. Take heart! You have only been digging on this for 18 months. I have philatelic research projects that have been running for a lot longer than that. Painstaking research takes time and effort, if you don't give up in the meantime. The worst way to give up is to assume you have arrived at the answer before all the facts are in and in order.

I do hope you will allow dialog with someone (me) who will treat your ideas soberly and with respect. Where they have merit they will be recognized, and where they fall short, they will be re-examined. Evidence and not mere power of persuasion will be used to determine what is of value and what is not. I trust that you are open to that, but if that is not workable for you, please say so and I will back off.

By the way, on Friday June 3, at World Stamp Show - NY 2016 from 10 a.m. to noon there will be a special ad hoc gathering of Bank Note Issue specialists and collectors. Let me invite you to check it out, and bring your item along for direct examination and discussion. http://www.ny2016.org/Event.aspx?eventid=88 br /


@Historical DNA




This is precisely the kind of speculative venture I wish to avoid. Out of respect for 18 months of research effort by Philatelic Rocker, however well conducted that may or may not have been, we need to weigh his methods and results against those of previous researchers who have published their methods as well as their findings. To do that requires familiarity with his and their work. Since you have already admitted gaps there, let me suggest that it would be more fruitful for you to fill in those gaps before attempting to critique his work.


Crawford Capen, ed. "Two Cent Carmine-Variety." Post Office 4 (May 1894) 23-24.

Luff, John N. Postage Stamps of the United States. (New York, NY, 1902) 120-124.

Richard M Morris. The Two Cent Stamp of the Small Bank Note Issue of 1890: Exploring Relief Breaks, Papers, and Shades. Norfolk, MA: Pittsboro Philatelics, 2003.

Sollenberger, Harold M. "A New Research Paper on an Old Topic: Relief Breaks on the 2c 1890 American Bank Note Company Issue." United States Specialist 85 (August 2014) 343-347 [study sampler]

--------. A census of Relief Breaks on the 1890 Two-Cent American Bank Note Company Issue. U.S. Stamp Society Research Paper #22, May 2014.

Stanton, Jr., Frank E., A. B. Berresford, and Wilbur W. Davis. Relief Breaks on the 2 Cents Stamp of 1890. (Hollis, NY: Arnold F. Auerbach, 1935) [18 pages]


Research Paper #22 from the United States Stamp Society (USSS) - is available for free pdf download to members of the USSS.

http://www.usstamps.org/membership/

for members: http://www.usstamps.org/download/re...mpany-issue/

A "download" link will appear when you have logged in, for which you will need to set up a free online account using your member ID.

And a bit of nit-picking:



Aside: on the use of the term "transfer roller" please see the introduction to the Scott U.S. Specialized catalog. There, for several decades, the term has been spelled out as "transfer roll." If one is looking for an alternate term, students of paper currency refer to this device as a "cylinder die," following the nomenclature of Jacob Perkins, the inventor of the process. As an alternative this seems preferable to "transfer roller" inasmuch as in American industry a "roller" is a cylindrical bearing that facilitates the movement of two objects over or past one another. Since that is not in any sense the function of the device in question, such a term ought to be avoided. For my part I will continue to call it by the name canonized by Scott, the American Philatelist, and the erstwhile Essay-Proof Journal since the middle of the 20th century up to now.

I think the forum moderators do a good job with maintaining the decorum and tone of this forum. Personal attacks are not allowed nor are nasty posts; it is a friendly forum. I have not noticed any nastiness or personal attacks in this thread and the Mods appear to agree.

The thread starter titled the thread "Unique US 220b (with PF cert) ebay auction - thoughts?" In my mind this made the marketing, potential value, AND legitimacy of this stamp as being 'on topic' for this thread.

This is a public forum; ALL opinions should be welcome and encouraged. There are no requirements for a poster to have decades of experience or to be a philatelic scholar. Sometimes a person with little experience can make a great observation that those closer to the topic have not considered. No one should be inhibiting opinions from being posted as long as the forum rules are being followed. Any opinions, even if some find them inane, should be welcomed.

The issue of whether or not the "220b" exists is open. Having another example discovered would go a long way in proving it is a repeatable variety. In the meantime and if the stamp owner wanted to, he could easily re-submit this stamp to PF or any other certification bodies to help prove its legitimacy. But note there is a good chance that that it would not get a new cert at this time.

It is his right to ask whatever he wants for the stamp. Obviously he feels it is worth a lot but the marketplace will eventually determine its value.
Don

Okay, I have a proposition.

I just got off the phone with Richard Champagne with an idea, and he's all for it,

I also spoke with Jeffrey Brahin, Bank Note section editor for the USPCS Chronicle, and organizer of the BN specialists gathering at World Stamp Show in New York on Friday June 3 (see link above).


We would like to have Philatelic Rocker attend that meeting, with his 220b candidate along, and allow the group to discuss it and the issues related to it with Richard Champagne in attendance. At Richard's suggestion we will also try to have a representative of the PF in attendance for any comment they might wish to make. It is the kind of topic that I think would appeal to a wide range of Bank Note specialists, and could open the door for continued study and discussion.

So. Philatelic Rocker, can we count on you to be at that meeting? Inquiring minds want to know.

Umm, what if it sells on ebay first... Ducks and runs.

essayk, the meeting would be fascinating. In fact, I would think two hours wont be enough. I enjoy listening to passionate experts discuss topics that are in their wheelhouse.

I hope this happens.

I would love to see Rich Champagne again and I'll see what I can do to make. Regarding our continued discussion, I'm amazed that anyone would suggest that I should re-submit for a new certifacation? My cert from the NYPF is all I need.
I'll get back to you about June 3rd, but I'm pretty much done here. A relief break that "most likely" caused a cap on the left, a cap on the right, and caps on both 2's? If Jim Lee thinks it's too much of a coincidence then why is it so hard for anyone else to consider?
As far as my asking price. I'll treat this just like PSA treats their sports cards. This is certified genuine and POP (population)1. If someone wants it in their collection they know where to find me.
Thank you, essayk.

I know PhilatelicRocker is done with this thread, but if others are still reading...I thought someone had put together a study of the "relief breaks", with stamps showing the different "stages".
This of course was the left 2 only, so is a bit off topic.

Does anyone know of this work? Or am I clueless on this also?

stampcrow,

You are not off topic at all. I have been following this thread. I do have a personal interest in knowledge of this stamp. We did not count ours, we weighed them. Approximately 1800. We want to look through them. Much better to have read about them and things to look for first!

Hope to see you at the show!

rlm, since my last post above, I did some searching on this site and also reread this thread. Essayk had mentioned that Richard Morris wrote about these. The Two Cent Stamp of the Small Bank Note Issue of 1890: Exploring Relief Breaks, Papers, and Shades. Norfolk, MA: Pittsboro Philatelics, 2003.

And again it was essayk that mentioned, Research Paper #22 from the United States Stamp Society.

PhilatelicRocker wrote


I have done no research on these items, except reading this forum. But I enjoy discussing things anyway.

The assertion that the caps were intentional is troubling to me. First question would be..., why only one?

Secondly, who would they have been alerting with these marks?

And also, doesn't a change in color mark itself just by being a different color?

I realize my questions aren't scholarly nor academically germane, but it's the kinda stuff I think about.

completely agree with stampcrow's questions

I am going to use part 7 of the seller's write-up as a jumping off point for identifying some of the problem areas needing further discussion and clarification. His statements will appear in quotation boxes, and the follow-up response will touch on the questioned areas. These are matters I believe will need some attention at the meeting in New York. I have grouped them in two posts. I offer them in the spirit of good preparation.




[The Scott lisings for 220 a,b, and c were not for major catalog numbers but for minor subvarieties as noted.]




[The color change was approved for color May 12, 1890, and the issuance of the new color commenced some time after this. Do you have evidence that the issue date was delayed after approval by one to two years?





[We need to see your documentation (bibliographic references) for these claims, since they are at odds with the following paragraph from the Research Paper by Harold Sollenberger referenced above:

"The philatelic press first announced the discovery of a relief break on this stamp in an April 1894 Post Office article.3 This first reference called it a "crowned" stamp, later to be described as "caps" on the left and right numerals. The author, presumably the editor, refers to left, right, and both caps and to the fact that some columns of a sheet seen contained no caps and others only the left cap. This is very early evidence that he knew the flaw was a transfer roll problem and not plate damage nor a die flaw. First reports came to him in late 1893. In the collecting world, the first documented use of a capped stamp was actually in mid-1892."

In 1902 John Luff wrote a paragraph about these varieties. It begins: There are some minor varieties of the two cent stamps which are of trifling interest. These are colorless marks, commonly called "caps", above one or both of the figures of value. They are caused by damaged transfer rolls. By some means, probably over hardening, a bit of the roll was chipped off. " He goes on to note that there are three varieties of these "transfers" used in conjunction with undamaged positions on the transfer rolls, and he notes the plate numbers where combinations of them may be observed.

Dr. Sollenberger mentions that in the late 20s and early 30s "fly-speck collecting" became popular and some organized as the "Shift Hunters." He reports that "over 80 articles" appeared (mostly in the Shift Hunter Letter no doubt) discussing the various relief and transfer varieties of the 2c of 1890, including but not limited to the cap varieties.

When Frank Stanton published the first classification schema for these varieties in 1935 (reference above) he classed them as "relief breaks." This was consistent with the content of all the writers who preceded him.

From the outset there has been a common understanding that these varieties are due to defects in one of the transfer rolls used to enter the plates. I have not yet found a dissenting opinion; nor anyone who espouses either of the explanations you provide at the head of this section. It is therefore important that you point us to the works that gave rise to your comments here, so we can understand how you arrived at your conclusions.]





[Please cite something published by some of these "most experts" that attribute the cap varieties to "plate wear or poor plate cleaning." Which experts agree that the caps were intentional? (Citation?) Which experts agree that we may never know? (Citation?)

We need those citations, because for now it looks like this is your thinking alone. Citing undocumented private communication will not do unless and until it can be verified by a third party. Those aren't my rules; that's scholarship!]

[continued from my last post above]




Do you mean official records or the unofficial reports in the philatelic press of that day?

Minor point here, only mentioned for the sake of accuracy: These plate numbers as given are not correct. They are missing the set reference letters. These stamps were printed on five-plank presses (proprietary to the ABNCo) which required that plates be run in sets of five. So that is how the plates were prepared. But within a set not all the plates were entered using the same transfer roll or even the same reliefs from the roll in a give plate. As a result combinations of relief varieties occur in combination across the rows and columns and between plates in a set, and that is true for the cap varieties as well as all the rest of the many dozens on #220. That is why the set reference letters matter. For example after Luff reports that plate TT235 consists of stamps with the left numeral cap, he notes a set of strips in the possession of Hiram Deats for plates: SS232, TT236, TT238, TT239, none of which show a cap variety for any position. So the set was not uniform.





To this we may add the imperforates on stamp paper in collector's hands, which are now known to be proofs. I am not sure which plate numbers are to be associated with these, but some are from 200 subject plates and some are 400 subject plates.




Luff lists 54 SETS of plates (5 plates per set) for the 2c, of these 32 sets are 400 subject plates, the rest 200 subject. The total mass of this kind of material in collectors hands pales in comparison to what must have been pulled at the time.





However, the BEP did not produce #220. Any proofs of that stamp which had been pulled by ABNCo would have been turned over to the Post Office Department, and would not necessarily have been archived at the Bureau.




The PF cert acknowledges that the stamp was authentic. No need to argue for that. The question at issue is whether or not the cap on this stamp has the same origin as the other cap varieties.





That this stamp is certified as genuine does not prevent it from being an anomaly. Lots of EFO material was and is good for postage. EFO specialists are in a better position than I to recount how these relief breaks are regarded by those specialists.





There is some ambiguity here. What the PF certified and what you are claiming they certified are two different things. On the face of it, the PF affirmed that the stamp is genuine and agreed that it has a colorless "cap" over the right two. This fact had to be affirmed at least based on appearance alone. However, on the cert they did not identify it specifically as 220b. Nor did they make an association with the similar appearing 220a and 220c varieties, nor did they certify that it is a relief break. They might address those matters in a follow-up if asked to explain/interpret the intent of what is on certificate #464474.

Moreover, while it is true this is the only stamp certified as having a cap over the right two, it is not the only stamp known to specialists as exhibiting this characteristic, nor accepted by some as evidence for a relief break on the right two only. These points are discussed in the literature to which reference has been given above.

stampcrow, others,
essayk has now spilled the beans in terms of detailing how Philatelic Rocker's assertions/arguments have flaws. However, he does have one very strong point if some of his huge list of contributing experts truly support his conclusion.

To specifically answer this:



It is best answered by essaky in his earlier reply:



Take a look at PF cert 293738 for photographic evidence.

Given essayk's detailed reply, it could seem that Philatelic Rocker doesn't do a complete job of linking concepts together into valid arguments. He also doesn't seem to be willing to consider counterarguments nor have interest to refute them.

My replies were mostly to reiterate what others had previously stated and to hopefully engage Philatelic Rocker to respond by starting with the basics. Obviously, my nor anyone's approach worked to get him to actually engage in discussion.

I thought that essayk was saving this for the future meeting at NY2016, but I was wrong.

Take a look at http://www.re-entries.com/terms.html#dry and see if you can find similarities to the stamp in question. Tomorrow, maybe, I'll start a thread depicting some of the dry prints of this issue that I have found. There are some clues to be found in them concerning the Intaglio process and transfer roll relief breaks.

It may not be possible in the NY2016 setting, but I would love to see a micro-topography analysis that compares the subject stamp with examples of the other cap varieties. Imaging at an oblique angle with a USB microscope would be much better than a scan or picture to view the height of areas in question.