Scott 702 Red Cross... Lake?

I see that Scott does not have a sub listing for 702 with a lake cross. I see some offerings for this stamp in what appears to be a lake shade but no real sales. Is this a collectible variety?

I have seen lake examples; I don't know why Scott does not list it. They list so many other issues of the period in lake. I would certainly keep it as a variety if I collected that issue and found one.

I think they are all black ink contaminating the red to make it look lake-ish.

That did not seem to happen elsewhere, such as the Yorktown. Why expect it here?

I've never really understood why Scott does not recognize many of the lake color varieties of many issues. It seems like they are slowly recognizing some of them while ignoring others.

I think they are collectible varieties and when I find what I believe are legitimate examples, I add them to my own collection regardless of what Scott decides to include in their catalog.

Walkman82, my experience is that if you get one certified (recgonized authority) and sumbit it for consideration, Scott will list it in the specialized. This happened years ago with a 2c red carmine lake variety that I found. The process was simple & straightforward - I sent them a scan of the stamp, scan of the PFC, and it was in the next catalog with a "dash" for the price. If you have something that isn't listed, get it certified and send it in.

It's possible Scott is not recognizing them simply because no one is proving they exist and asking them to...

I have seem an example where the cross was way darker than lake and it was obvious that it was black ink contaminating the red. Does that prove that some weren't printed with lake ink? No, but it does cause doubt.

With equipment such as the VSC6000 on hand today, that possibility could be checked and either agreed with or eliminated.

I recently received these as part of a lot on ebay. The transition of color would seem to support ink contamination rather than a true lake variety.

Thoughts? Is it just a one-off (or recurring) case of contamination or a true error of color? Is it worthy of expertization?

Walkman, that is interesting. Since the ink should have been the same all over the red plate it may have been partial contamination of the red plate, not really the ink itself?

Peter

Peter, I thought the same thing but examples like this seem to be turning up more and more. I could understand it as a one-off plate contamination, but it appears to be recurring. I never really noticed (or looked for) this in the past. I just noticed it in the last year. Has there been much more discussion about it in the past? Other articles or publications addressing it?