Possible Franklin Scott #594 Or #596?

Hello,

I have measured myself (not an expert) and believe that this has 11 X 11 perfs. Can someone help me confirm and help me distinguish if I have a rarity please? I can get a better picture if needed...Thoughts?

Welcome.
Thank you for your post. Many here could simply tell you your stamp's identification but perhaps it is better to 'teach a man how to fish'…

When identifying stamps, it is best to always start with the assumption that you have the most common stamp. This limits bias from influencing your identification efforts. The best order in identifying the Washington/Franklins stamps is as follows
1. ID the design
2. Determine the perforation
3. Determine the watermark
4. Determine the printing method (flat plate, rotary, offset)

The last step is the one where folks go off-track and start trying to measure a stamp design. They assume that a simple definitive method to demine a rotary stamp is to measure it. This is not the best way to determine a rotary stamp. The measurements found in catalogs and online are not definitive and the processes of trying to hand measure the design is very likely to produce misleading results. There are other things to look for (i.e. setoff on the back of the stamp, the color of the stamp, the 'feel' of an engraved vs. non-engraved stamp) which, after some experience, will guide you to the correct determination of printing method. After this if there is still reason to think that the stamp is a rotary printing, than do not pick up the ruler. Instead, make and use a template made from another stamp to better understand design size.
http://www.stampsmarter.com/learnin...methods.html

You can also search this forum for one of the multiple threads which have previous discussed these topics for additional info and images.
Don

Thank you for the information Don! I went through your steps and step 3 is throwing me. What am I looking for in a watermark? The link you attached does not speak to a watermark on the stamp either. Is there something specific I am looking for?

Side note... Being new it is very hard to start with the assumption that it is common...the rarity adds to the excitement!

Tom

Trwhite... to obtain further help on your stamp, you will need to post a backscan.

@Trwhite, it may add to the excitement, but it also makes for a much larger disappointment when you ind out what it really is.....

Peter

@Petert4522... VERY true... lol

@disi123 - The stamp is attached in a book and I am afraid it may not come out easily/well.

I did do some overlays (Again, not a professional) with online images of Scott 596... first 2 are perf comparison and the other 2 are image size comparisons. Thoughts?

Hi Tr...welcome to the forum.

Sorry, but not a rarity. If you don't mind me asking - given that you're a self-proclaimed non-expert - how did you discover the #594 & #596 & that they were rarities??

Yes - yours looks like the 594 & 596. There are literally billions of stamps that look like this. We can count the actual 594 & 596s on our fingers...

@mdroth I was looking through the stamps I have and did some Google searches regarding the value of stamps and the #594 and #596 were listed... Google searched more and found this forum.

How can you tell that this isn't one (Aside from probability working against me..lol)? What was the thing that stood out to you? Is it that easy to tell for experts?

Tom

The pre-cancel. The color.

It's a very very common stamp...all of us have literally hundreds - if not thousands - of them.

Certified 594 & 596s can literally be counted on fingers & toes....

Trwhite 34,
Please tell us why you seem to have eliminated Scott 552 from consideration?
Also, for Don's step 3 above, none of this issue is watermarked, so skip that number.
And as already noted, a scan of the reverse side would be so extremely helpful in a proper ID.

Hi John,
Being new, I am navigating through this slowly and did not know about the Scott 552.

What is the best way to remove a stamp carefully from a book (Looks to be attached well) so I can scan the back?

ok, let me back up 1 step. What reference did you use to come up with 594/596 to begin with? I gather is was not Scott's US Specialized Catalog, which has a fairly good identifier for definitives in the introductory pages and is available at many libraries.

The stamp should be easily removed by soaking, which is described in several threads in this forum. While it may sound odd, looking at the back of a stamp can tell as much as looking at the front. Reread Don's post above. The reverse side ink "setoff" is one of the key features to quickly ID flat vs rotary printings, and a major clue in differentiating 552 vs 594/596.

Despite the excitement of discovering a rarity, rare stamps are rare for that exact reason, and comments offered about first assuming you have the common variety will prove true 99.999% of the time. Think: "What are the odds of winning the lottery?"

Hi John,

I did not have a Scott catalogue... I used Google and some of the threads on this forum and decided to post and ask the question rather than assume it was. I am learning and as a beginner, the first time reading through the posts/information I do not absorb (or understand) everything posted. The more I am reading, and thanks to the replies here, I am learning and understanding more.

So although I joked earlier about the excitement of finding a rarity, I do understand the probability... however, the possibility is what makes this fun!