Britain Commerative Series - Error Year 1937 Instead Of 1987??

Another View guy..

I strongly beleived it it 3..you can look at the three cut-line of the number 3 is so real..I never alter or doctor the stamp like some of us accused before..

And what is promised to look at is the lowest horinzontal line of three that is longer and more horizontal that lowest line of 8 from two top stamps..







Best regards
Mfie
Error seeker!

My last post here,
believe what you must.

Rod..

The top arm of the 3 is yes begin to turn in..

But the lowest line of 3 is so different in shape compared to 8 of other two. It is more prolonged-horizontal shape than the 8 for lowest line.Meanwhile when you see the two balls of 8 inside you can see it is totally different to the shape of semi-balls of 3 in term of its size, length and width..

And rod..if it is damaged 8, why there are clearly 3 clear cut-line. And in addition, no at all showing of just shade to complete the cut-lines..If it was damaged then it must be three shade just like shade inside of the 8 but the 3 is showing lines at end of arms and inside lefted-lean point..

My English is not so good to explain but hope you able to understand my means very well :)

Mfie

When you see the blink-image..You can see clearly the lowest line is different of lenghth and shape.. the 8 is more oval and the 3 is more horinzontally lined.

Then, you must also compare top ball the 3 is bigger in size and the 8 smaller..In addition top ball 8 is more prone toward rectangular but the ball 3 more prone toward oval..

Can you described rod in this.. I still beleived it was 3..the printer probably adjust the original 8 shape in photoshop maybe and come out with final a 3 shape to denote the error..And it is very rare..

Mfie

Post of the year

This thread is dangerously close to being nothing more than trolling. The bottom line here is obvious; the original poster should send it in for a certification. Arguing over this anymore will not result in anything productive. Please move on.
Don

Quite. The link for the Royal Philatelic Society's expert group is below

http://www.rpsl.limited/Home.aspx

Studebaker, your point is clear..what is the cost for certification?anyone know?should I need to send to Britain if going to the Royal Philatelic Society's expert as GeoffHa mentioned?

The blink-image that was created in seconds by rod222 is good but lack of evident. Anyway thank for that rod222. You are the best on visual ability but not much explanation for details.

The link provided above to the Royal gives the pricing. Please remember to show us the certification as that would be a rare event and a treat.

Redwoodrandy,

Can you elaborate a little bit by what you said "the certification as that would be a rare event and a treat"

Did you means the stamp as rare if confirmed the error or otherwise just a damaged 8 as rod222 replied above?

I hope it is so and would be in new catalog if get certificate hence.

Redwoodrandy,

Shall my pleasure then to show here if get certificate for the well being of us in this beautiful hobby

Mfie

Dear all,

Good nite..apparently RSPL had viewed my email and reply me. They want to certify my stamp. I shall sure get it a certificate.

On the reply, they mentioned the probability of error made by some material during printing process not by inking problem.But for now on, I dare to say that it is an error not to be taken easy and RSPL has acknowledged the error in the reply and would want to certify for certain..

Mfie

Be sure to post your results, good or bad, when RSPL gives you your findings. There have been MANY cases where posters have told us that they were going to get a certification, and then we never hear from them again (presumably because it was not certifiable). A recent case is the missing color on the Yellow Slipper:

https://goscf.com/t/50468

Good Luck!