You Tell Me What You Think About This Stamp

Hi All, one of my favorite stamps, but will not disclose why now. Later I will.

You tell me what you think, let everyone experienced and inexperienced take a stab at this R168!

All comments welcome, especially from new collectors of such material.

The scan is clear enough on my monitor, hope you all can see this scan as good as I can.

Stampmaster

The cancel and the center of the stamp are obscured by the overprint.

I find it a very nice engraving. Isn't the ship the Maine, which blew up in Havana harbor?

Don

Why do you add the big 'Stampmaster' and catalog number over the top of your images?
Don

It is supposed to represent the Maine, but it has been identified by some as the Olympia.

Simple: It's his Grandfather's name in the purple overprint....

For many years the philatelic literature insisted that the ship was not the Maine. But, it is indeed the Maine. The painting from which the image was taken was found in the Naval Archives in Washington by the husband of Cecilia Hatfield Wertheimer, during her time working for the Bureau of Engraving's Historical Resource Center. I believe that Frank Sente has reported this.

The following site is devoted to the study of the use of the 1898 Battleships: http://1898revenues.blogspot.com

It has the appearance of being roulette 5.5 at top and H.H. 7 at the side and bottom. However this could just be an illusion created by using a steel rule to separate them at the side and bottom.

It has a big black "R168 Stampmaster" printed cancel on it?

Echoing Don's question though, watermarking images posted here really isn't necessary and actually interferes with any analysis of the stamp. If you'll notice, virtually no one else here watermarks their images.

Hi Stampmaster,

From your several other posts it's clear that you have a strong interest in double transfers, so I'd guess that that is the case here.

However I personally don't see anything like that here, other than a murky or blurred printing.

Jim

I agree. This stamp was printed slightly wet so it's a bit blurred.

It does look like a subtle but pervasive double transfer.
The D in Documentary, and the E in Cents seem to show it better than many, but it appears to be pretty pervasive throughout the stamp.

edit: what revcollector said is definitely also a possibility. If you find a second copy of this, then its a DT, otherwise up in the air. My first inclination, however, stands - it kind of does look like a legit double transfer.

Hi all

Look at both left and right figure "10".

Look at "SERIES OF 1898".

Look at "D" of DOCUMENTARY.

Hi Don, I only add over print information on stamps that I have a vested interest in. Hard lesson learned the hard way, sure you will agree.

Using the watermarking process can show unseen faults in a stamp, since watermarking does no damage, I recommend everyone to watermark their stamps when you are identifying them. Just a suggestion from me, and old stamp collectors tip.

I enjoyed all the guesses so far, keep them comming.

Stampmaster

Stampmaster,

Sorry, all I see is blurriness.

The bottom left frame line is just as blurred as the other areas that you mentioned.

A double transfer creates new lines/shapes in the printed design, which are separate from the original lines.

In this stamp, there is just extraneous, smeared ink.

Jim

Could be the original or damaged plate ..Some major differences.Mast lines not straight.Small pearls badly done.Wide space in horiz. lines.

It is possible for the background lines to be doubled into the numerals, but to see that accurately would require a much better image.