Help Chile 5 Centavos Stamp Identify

Note: Bumped Thread.

Any Chile members experienced in early Chile?
I have ascribed what I think are pertinent Scott numbers.
Welcome any opinions, corrections.
Thanks.





Sc#12B 1862 A1 10c blue Wmk10f

First one is a Scott #3, Santiago print, but appears to be a shade that Scott doesn't bother to list. Looks to be orange brown (which correlates to a printer that is called "Münze" in Michel, which I think just means "the mint"). But the paper color/toning might be throwing that off to my eyes.

Second is #13 of course. There is a darker/deeper shade.

Third is #12, at minimum, since I can't discern the bluish paper. Note that the printer is Perkins, Bacon so the paper color is weakly blue/bleuté and somewhat hard to see in the first place. Seeing the back might help with the paper color ID.

Thank you very much, for your time HB.

Last evening the 10c looked lightly blued, this morning, I feel it is the hue coming from the front of the stamp.
I think white paper.

The 5c appears on creamy white.

10c 20c 5c

Bumped this thread again.

I am struggling to identify these two Chilean A1's. The 10c definitely appears to have a "e" watermark. The 5c is much more difficult to tell. Only the bottom 25% of the watermark shows up even though the watermark is well centered in the stamp. That did rule out "d", but it could be either "b" or "c".

From these images, can someone more experienced in these issues tell which Scott numbers they are?

BTW - I don't think the Scott Specialized Catalogue helps much with the identification. I did try using the Big Blue web site, and that seems to have eliminated the "Impressions Work and Blurred" but I am not experienced with these and therefore not sure.

DELTABOXX ---Looks like a 1865 Santiago Print , I would say it looks like it was played with .......my guess it had a fiscal usage that was removed because of the tamping to the design {white spots }. Plus the brown line thru the second "R" in correos tells me it could be a ink line .

I've got a whole album of just these 5c issues, several hundred. The original collector points out a lot of flyspeck differences between them. Has anyone done plating on these so I can find if the flyspecks are in the design and not just printing issues?

billsey: You can checkout this link that lists plate varities of the Colon issues.
(PRIMERAS EMISIONES 1853-1866,Variedades de plancha)

https://www.sociedadfilatelica.cl/S...emision.html
https://www.sociedadfilatelica.cl/p...%201-100.pdf

Some more reading:

https://siegelauctions.com/2008/957...er_Chile.pdf
http://f660b8feb5396b87e648727b5bf1...complete.pdf
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream...&isAllowed=y

What a advance worldwide collector would have .

Thanks for those links. I'll have to sit down and do a bit more IDing on them.

I guess what I am really looking for help with is ... what part of the design does one looks at to declare whether a particular instance is "Impressions Fine and Clear" or "Impressions Worn and Blurred"? Both of these stamps have the Santiago Prints watermarks, but I don't have the experience to know Fine vs Worn. These look Fine and Clear to me, but without having a one good instance of each state, it is hard to know. I have read through all the links included here, and none appear to show good references of each.

If someone could state which these are and why, I would greatly appreciate it.

To me the printing part of both stamps is good, but the amount of "not printed" is terrible on one stamp, a bit better on the red one. In other words both stamps are just mediocre in my opinion


Peter

Thanks for the response Peter.

Is that to say that there is no definitive way to tell the difference between the Santiago Prints of 1854 and those of 1856-62? Is the difference just a subjective choice?

Or are these like the US 3c Washington's that have to be plated to definitively determine which printing they came from?

On those two I would call the 5c definitely a worn impression. The details of the background, both the outer areas and around the vignette, are much less detailed that in the 10c. Also look at the fine lines of the hat beneath the ON of COLON. What I wouldn't say is that neccessarily makes the 10c a fine impression, I'd have to compare it with others first...

Thanks for the reply Billsey. I agree that the 10c blue has more clarity than the 5c red, especially noticeable in the features of Columbus and his hat.

I also went back to that 2nd link that rodgcam provided (thanks for those links!) and zoomed in on some of the "fine" issues in that Chile Hackmey Broschure. In those fine examples, not only is Columbus fine, but the outer design aspects are also all very clear. That definitely leads to the conclusion that the 5c is a worn variety. The 10c blue is a bit murkier. The center aspects of the stamp look as clear as the fine examples in the link, but the outer areas do not, especially the top right, lower right, and lower left corners. I guess I sort this one as worn, but perhaps consider it on the better side of the worn one's.