This Stamp 596 ???

My opinion this stamp 596
Perf 11 19.25X22.50

Scott 552

But Perf.11x11 19.25X22.50

Agreed, Scott 552.

martinboyanov83...These guys are 99.9% accurate with what they are telling you..BUT, for your own piece of mind..Sent it to a reputable place that will tell you what it is..

Robert

chasa / stallzer - I can appreciate how frustrating it can be to repeat the same basic information a bajillion times in response to these types of posts. That said, where is the benefit to an OP, or even to experienced collectors like myself who still struggle with flat vs. rotary identification, to responses like yours? Kindly include some basic explanation, as this will help new collectors learn what to look for, and reinforce to someone like me that I am correctly interpreting what I see.

martinboyanov83 - I am inclined to agree that you have an ultra-common #552, based on:

• The deep green color (but see many posts on the challenges of judging colors from a photo or scan). The rare #596 is of a more "normal" green.
• The generous white area at top. Even with the downshift of the printed image, I believe the #596 plate had stamps closer together in the vertical.

One thing you can look for would be the presence of an offset image on the back of the stamp. If your stamp has such an image, then it is 100% NOT a rotary press #596 as this is a property of flat plate printing.

If I am incorrect on anything here, please do help me improve my identification skills. Thanks!

This may be useful to you - an informative and easy-to-read article on the differences among the 1-cent Franklin stamps.

http://www.linns.com/news/us-stamps...ave-a-winner

The term is "setoff" and refers to ink transfer as a result of stacking wet sheets. "Offset" is incorrect, and potentially misleading because offset printing is a specific kind of printing.

The same poster also asked about a 596 a few weeks ago in the following thread and received extensive comments; based on that and basic other resources on the internet he ought to be able to apply the proper tests. The story of the boy who cried wolf begins to come to mind ... As for providing useful information to others, there are probably 20 threads on here relating to 596 and rotary versus offset for the W/F issues, so finding what you need is easy.

www.stampcommunity.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=42921

cjpalermo1964, you make an interesting point of "setoff" vs. "offset", and I'm not telling you are wrong.

I've been a U.S. Stamp Collector for over 60 years now, right or wrong term, the term offset has been used all my time in stamp collecting, and I suppose much, much longer. So the term offset will continue to be use to describe the ink transfer!

Dave

The proper term is set-off but if one uses "offset," then one ought to, especially with an inexperienced collector, write "ink offset arising from being stacked on freshly printed sheets," or something like that.

The OP claims to be in Turkey with a Russian sounding name and writes brief English sentences with a decided Russian accent (elision of copulative verbs and articles). Checking up on old US postage stamps cannot be easy for him. I'm with those who want to cut him some slack and field his questions with patience. So he doesn't get it the first time. What really is it you want to use suspicion to protect?

The OP has posted multiple different inquiries, with the subject line ending in ???, asking if various stamps are rarer, higher-value items. Usually he identifies the high-value option by Scott number, so he likely has a catalog. In fact he has asked on two different occasions about 596. And, the number of SCF posts has no bearing on collector experience or knowledge.

So, in my opinion, it would be courteous to the community for this OP to do at least a threshold level of research in easily available prior SCF threads rather than repeatedly seek the easy route of a community opinion on the same topic over and over. Once a poster does that, then describe briefly what you did, how you eliminated the common issues and why you are stuck. But, if you (essayk) enjoy repeatedly explaining W/F identification to posters who have no interest in learning the ID criteria themselves and just want you to do their work for them, good for you, carry on.

How do you determine frustration in my answer ? It does not frustrate me in the least bit and I have no issue with the OP's question and my response was a simple answer that I agreed with the previous answer.

I have no idea what the OP's knowledge depth is and didn't feel the need to instruct him / her to purchase an expensive caliper to properly measure design or get into the gory details until asked for them. It was simply an answer.

Knowing that the original poster has inquired about this rarity before, I re-read his earlier "Scott 594 or 596?" thread this morning. There is quite a lot of information there, and it is all of clear use to a basic/intermediary collector.

Then I considered what I would learn from that info if I were reading it in Spanish. A bit of a challenge there. If it were Mandarin? Almost nothing. So now I have a slightly better idea of the OPs situation, as English is clearly not his native language. Now, if three more "596?" threads turn up???

For the OPs benefit (and anyone else like me who stays hopeful...)
http://www.siegelauctiongalleries.u.../594/594.pdf
http://www.siegelauctiongalleries.u.../596/596.pdf
Although many of the photos are b&w, they do serve well as examples of the centering issues on these rarities.

• If I cut a template from a 552, what should I expect to see when overlaid on a suspected 596?
• Am I correct that what appears to be a Deep Green color eliminates the possibility of this being a 596?
• Am I correct that a setoff image may appear on a 596? I did not find pics of a 596-back in a quick look online.

Just saying, if the OP can't understand the responses to his previous post because of language differences, how on Earth will he understand the same information posted again in this thread?

The original responses were all that was necessary, further backed by the fact the OP never actually asked a question.

OP should, at the very least post a backscan
if he wishes continued attention to his question...