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

Here is a scan of the photo of the 3rd Assistant Postmaster General's letter accompanying the lot:

thank you for letting us see those images. Indeed the printing quality is obvious, as is the reddish color which I don't have in my album.

so was this stamp attached (with gum) to the letter and then soaked off?
Do you have the stamp already in hands? If so, a detail photo would be interesting to get an even better idea of the printing quality, I look (beside the diagonal lines) often at the eye, and at the area of POSTAGE if the letters are sharp.

I hope for the other participants of this thread to continue with more knowledge. Do we have for example documents or sources that tell us more about Luff's stamp, so that we know if there were more than this one reddish example known? Do we know from documents about the gum status of the special printing (real or added special printing)? What is the timeline of the first printing, the special printing and the letter you showed?

(I looked at some of my 5c stamps and did not find any similar to your one.)

The stamp has full OG, hinged. It was laid on the letter for the photograph. That is the only thing linking the stamp to the letter; without which the stamp would be difficult to connect to the story.

Here's a more detailed image:

Hello Tipzi again, thank you.
Two things I could only add here: In this same thread you talked about whether this special printing was made with a stroke perforator - this would not be the case for the new shown stamp, correct?
Could you perhaps - if you find the time - make a macro photo of the area of the diagonal lines as well as the eye? Would certainly help for understanding the printing quality which I still don't really get in this scan (although I guess it's really good).

I think we will have to wait for other members to answer.

The good thing until now is: As long as experienced members like revcollector, essayk or cfrphoto don't say you're on the wrong path, it's a good sign :). But I guess there is in general information missing if your idea could be correct or not.

stamptrix,

Yes, this February issue was not perforated with a stroke perforator. Apparently, some or all of the ungummed regular issues that went to the 3rd Assistant Postmaster General after April 10 were perforated with a stroke perforator.

Unfortunately, my scanner doesn't do a much better job than the images I've supplied. My TWAIN scanner I had 15 years ago made really nice scans. Somewhere I think I have a microscope that connects to a computer, so I'll see if I can find it.

I won't have much of anything to say about this item, it is really not one that I have studied at all.

If you bothered to pay attention, there are any number of areas that I do not comment on. But you have to act like a jerk all the time, so you never notice.

Thank you Tipzi. About the detail image: I usually don't get enough detail with any scanner so I use a digital camera with macro option, and even better in combination with a normal loupe. That was for example the way I made those images: https://goscf.com/t/66573#581289 (althouth I still don't know if you can define manila paper under magnification...).

Of course we would not need that grade of magnification to see the quality of a printing. I will have a look at my Garfield stamps and see if I can show perhaps a detail like the eye or the diagonal lines.

As you mentioned the printing quality (in addition to other things) as a defining factor that your stamp could be a special printing: weren't the later printings, after cleaning the plate or possibly a new plate, also sometimes very sharp? Do you think it's all about the diagonal lines? Or is it exactly the combination with the reddish color which later didn't appear at all anymore? (you see I try to get some defining factors beside the letter and the story you told).

thank you also, revcollector, for let Tipzi and me know if you can add something, so perhaps the bank note specialists are yet to get into this thread.

OK, now things are getting interesting! I found Luff's "Postage Stamps of the United States" online, from which the reference to the reddish February 10, 1882, stamp issue came. This particular book was published by Scott in 1902, only 20 years after the first #205s were issued. Here is the relevant excerpt:



Now I'm certain that the stamp Luff references as having been shown to him is the very stamp I own. Not only is the letter from the 3rd Assistant Postmaster general dated February 10, 1882, but the content of the letter is exactly the same. Most notably, where it says "In response to your personal application," the word "personal" is hand written and not typeset, as is the "s day" of the phrase "this day". The chances of two such form letters being so altered going out on the same day seem extremely remote.




And, same as in the photo of the letter I posted above, the stamp Luff describes was attached to the letter from the 3rd Assistant PMG.

An additional tidbit of info is that this stamp was sent to somebody within the post office department. This would be consistent with a request to the department from a dignitary.

This is written with the best of my knowledge, I stand to be corrected.
The ink used on 215c would have been consistent at the time of application. However the paper that stamps are printed on can effect the stability of the color. Other factors are time, sunlight (particularly south facing) and humidity. All of these will cause some ink colors to fade. Cyan and black will be be the last colors to fade (ask any Tattoo artist). Magenta and then yellow will be the first to fade. The main culprit to fading is UV light. This will cause the yellow to oxidize. Anyone with a 6c Garfield or a 6c Washington-Franklin can testify that there once beautiful orange stamp is now turning to a disgusting brown. It now being 138 years since this stamp first saw the light of day some of them will have experienced a bit more light than others, and as you all know brown ink is a dye with yellow as one of the ingredients. So you might see a yellow Brown 205C and you might see a grey brown 205C. The main difference between this and 205 is that there was different ink used and that ink had more black and more yellow. You could in theory, have a 205 and 205c look the same, depending on how much exposure to UV light they have had, except for one distinguishing factor. The color Red!. Red does fade (rose madder being as bad as cyan) but not as near as much as yellow. BOTH 205 AND 205C have red in them, 205C has a little less. So when putting the two together you will see a more reddish tint to 205.

Lastly a word about impression. The impression will be sharp on 205c, so it will be on 205 on its first printing and every time the plate was thoroughly cleaned, which was not that often as the viscosity of the ink was way better than the carmines used at the time (the 6c Lincolns are awful)

Please provide an image. What is the evidence? Please keep in mind that perforations of the bank note period were aligned between rows. This continued into the early Bureau period. After that perforations aligned between rows was infrequent.