What Is The Difference Between A Grey Brown 205 And 205c If The Latest Would Be Circulated?

Back to the initial question: so, if I submit the stamp to the Philatelic Foundation for expertize then how could they establish what it is, please?

Any expertising service will use their expertisers and their reference collection and issue you a certificate for a used 205, which yours is.

For a longer answer ... when one seeks to get a certificate for a rare, unique or "discovery" item, the submitter's chances of getting a positive opinion hinge strongly on the submitter doing considerable homework in journals, auction catalogs, etc., to support your belief and to accompany the item. The more you can help the expertisers, the easier their task to help you.

thank you essayk. So the lack of gum does not exclude by 100% the possibility of a special printing found used, but still it's not the realistic case, of course (because of the reasons of probability you already explained, also for the usage of the 211B here at SCF some time ago).

To reduce the dreaming of collectors like of aug-stamps (or me or others reading this), another self-testable criterion is useful. Doesn't the impression of the special printings have to be proof-like? If yes, it would be easy to sort out most of the stamps, and also this of aug-stamps (as I mentioned above already). For the 211B there are for example the fine diagonal lines next to the head which should be there at the special printings, and the cripsness of the ink next to the "2". The 205C has also those lines, so this could be another criterion? (or as a part of "proof-like impression")

---
I just forgot one thing we alread read here, Tipzi's hint about the perforation, which is also not present in this ways in aug-stamps' stamp. So maybe we could add this to the clarity of impression and the diagonal lines to sort out all of those possible "special printings"?

Some references would be helpful. I looked at the Siegel images, but I didn't see any clear evidence that a stroke perforator had been used, except for one stamp that may be reperforated on the left side although nothing is mentioned in the certificate. It is clear that the perforating pins were reasonably sharp and that extreme care was taken to insure that the stamps were nicely centered. The general population of Scott 205 appear to have more ragged perforations, perhaps because the pins were not as sharp or the paper was softer than the special printing paper.

Without seeing a body of research, I would be reluctant to accept the idea that a stroke perforator was used for the special printing.

essayk,

I paraphrased an old article by Mooz, summarized in a Siegel lot description below:

"The enigmatic 1882 5c Garfield Special Printing has been the subject of recent research by William E. Mooz, whose findings were published in The Chronicle (Feb. 1992). Mooz has presented a well-reasoned theory that a limited supply of the 5c Garfield Special Printing was available from the Third Assistant Postmaster General's office beginning in February 1882 until April 10th when the regularly issued stamp was finally released after delay at the American Bank Note Company. Therefore, we have the extraordinary circumstance in which stamp dealers and collectors were able and eager to obtain a new issue before it actually appeared at post offices as a regularly produced stamp.

Mooz has determined that only four sheets were delivered to the Third Assistant Postmaster's office and sold to fill orders between February and April 1882. Of these sheets, which were printed at different times, only the Gray Brown shade - possibly just 100 stamps - has been consistently recognized as the Special Printing. On April 10th the regular issue became available, and back orders were filled using these normal stamps."

Clark,

I do think it's something that should be studied. There are several certified #205C whose perforation rows do not appear to be parallel. Also, due to uneven paper shrinkage it's difficult to produce good centering across a whole sheet, yet #205C typically comes well centered. The stamp with PFC#438884 seems to be one of the worst centered, but it also appears to have been reperforated at the left. The stamp with PFC#537453 doesn't share impression or perforation quality with any other #205C so I am suspect that it is a Special Printing.

I don't see why any of the #205's would have been perforated on a machine with fresh pins, given that other denominations were being produced and perforated by the millions, and the fact that the issuance of the Garfield stamp was already delayed. I can't see ABNC waiting on the overhauling of a perforating machine as prelude to issuing the #205/205C given the pressure to issue the stamps.

I noticed that #205SL, the yellow brown Garfield sample without overprint, was perforated with a stroke perforator. There are large multiples of these stamps that show clearly the out-of-parallel perf rows and the repeating defects among rows. Having such a perforator, and busily perforating millions of regular-issue stamps on the rotary perforators to keep up with orders, it just makes sense that ABNC would use the stroke perforator for such a small issue (the purported first four sheets). It also gives the operator the ability to center the perforations in the gutters more consistently for a better product sample.

It's important to remember the reasons behind the issuance of the 205C as to why no used ones exist.

The 205C was a special printing, as such these stamps were never distributed to post offices and the only way to buy them was to write to the post office dept in Washington, DC. A great number of the special printing stamps actually went to collectors overseas.

So the chances of seeing one on a typical cover to England or Germany or other very common use of a regular 205 is incredibly remote and highly improbable.

To summarize all the information presented so far, basically, the only way to establish if a circulated 5c Garfield is a 205c would be either by the cancelation date (February, if used immediately, which is highly unlikely), or by identifying the position in the sheet by comparing the perforations with those of the already certified 205c stamps? [Only 22 of them, according to Siegel census.]
The paper is the same as the common 205, the design and the ink are the same, the perforations are the same ...

#205C is theoretically the earliest printing of the Garfield stamp, issued to dealers who wanted to get the new stamp as soon as possible. Most such pre-orders got filled by the thousands of regular-issue #205's that were available starting in April; while just a few dealers received the advance copies in February and March. From my perspective, this issue came about to simply fulfill pre-orders for a highly-anticipated issue depicting an assassinated president, and is called a Special Printing only because it was sold through the Third Assistant Postmaster without gum as desired by collectors.

Now, suppose you had received your pre-order in March but then there were all the Garfield stamps you could want just a few months later, and for several years thereafter, just sitting in the local post office. Other than having no gum, what would be special about that pre-ordered stamp to a contemporary philatelist that would keep him from using it when done collecting or when getting a better copy (say, one with gum?). Five cents is about the equivalent of $1.50 today, so but for a spot of glue you have postage to Europe.

Without having the stamp cancelled there would be no way to distinguish a stamp received prior to the official issue from one bought afterwards. So there was incentive(s) to use the stamps, both as collectibles and as postage.

Aug-stamps, you are pretty much correct. As far as currently known, nothing about the Garfield Special Printing's paper, ink or perforations distinguish it from the regular issue. Provenance that can be traced to the early 20th Century is the determining factor. However, if the EKU cover is examined and the cancel verified it could be found to be a Special Printing by virtue of the date.

Now this becomes a bit difficult for me :). I really thought, and that what I read in Micarelli's guide, that the special printings were different as they had a great clarity of impression.

There are different special printings:
CBN 1875
ABN 1880
and: 205C + 211B + 211D

For a non-expert: why can we often read that the proof-like impression is a hint for a special printing, and for which of the above mentioned this is true?

Concerning the 205C the thing is really complicated, as the "real" special printing seems to have a red-brown color, and the other half of the so called special printings just were normal stamps, perhaps even with gum, as you can read here:
http://chronicle.uspcs.org/pdf/Chro...53/11125.pdf

If I look in addition at the Siegel sales of the 205C and the PF certificates (and why they could ever been made), I am now totally lost.

even more complicated: if I read Kloetzel's answer below, I understand this in that way that gray color special printings are the only ones that can be distinguished from the normal issue, so there has to be a difference. (if not, how should we explain the PF certificates?) But what is the difference?

http://chronicle.uspcs.org/pdf/Chro...74/17967.pdf

If we could magically assemble all the existing #205C special printing stamps, would we see very consistent colors across all the stamps today (100+ years later while these stamps were all stored under different environmental conditions)?
Don

here another article by Mooz about the special printings. it may also be due to language problems of me, but I really don't understand his message(s).

http://chronicle.uspcs.org/pdf/Chro...01/12518.pdf

on the one hand he says that neither for the 205C nor 210 special printing (the real one, not the 211B) nor the 211D there is enough difference between them and the regular issue to make a certificate. On the other hand he says about the 205C that there were true special printings, about 300, and only the others are not to distinguish from the regular issue.

I always read "those special printings are not distinguish from the regular issue, BUT..." :).

If anybody has understood why the 205C and 211D are still in Scott as Special printing and are sold at Siegel, it would be interesting to read this.

Does anybody have info on the steam press used for the 205c Special Printing?

According to Brookman the difference is a combination of shade and impression. I also suspect that once one has seen a fair number of special printings, the differences in impression become somewhat more noticeable.