Can You Precisely Identify This 15c Webster Without Seeing The Real Stamp, Please?

To save you time, there is no example there of #199 illustrated nor is there a discussion about ABNCo 15c values. It does show examples of orange and red orange ABNCo stamps.

Aug,

I can conclude for certain your stamp is not a Special Printing. When you study the soft paper Special Printings take note of their perforations. They are very rough inside. Fuzzy perf teeth tips are normal for soft paper stamps but not fuzzy within the quadrant of the hole facing the stamp design. Your stamp's holes are too clean to be the Special Printing.

My working hypothesis is that the paper had a high moisture content when perforated. Try cutting even slightly damp newspaper and it shreds. Sheets of the regular issue were stacked and pressed before gumming. This pressing is what put the ink set-off on back of flat-plate stamps, which testifies to some moisture being present. The Special Printings were not gummed so were not pressed; their holes are rough and they have no ink set-off.

#205C is a notable exception, which I believe was perforated on a stroke perforator, making perfectly round, clean holes.

Hy-brasil, anyway I am looking to buy the Encyclopedia ...
The examples presented in it will help, even if only by eliminating possibilities

Tipzi, in the last couple of months I did learn about stamps loads of things. Many of them, thanks to you guys, here on the forum! And one thing I learned is that it is very-very-very unlikely for me to have a very-very-very rare stamp in my collection
Also, I read loads of materials from various periods. The bits and pieces of information I found lead me to believe that something is wrong with the 'scarcity' of late Special Printings and with their 'secret marks'. Now, after studying all 48 certified Scott#193 present in Siegel's Census, and after studying the available dies of design A45 and A45a, I believe I found a design A45a detail which is typical only to the Special Print of 1880. So, I sent the stamp (the one from one of my earlier posts, with a double impression on the back) for expertize to Royal Philatelic Society, since I live in UK. [Together with the evidence I gathered.]
I don't know yet if I am right: I might be very well wrong. However, until I get their final opinion, I am pursuing this idea of researching the Special Prints.

I still don't understand how a special printing stamp issued without gum ends up "used"

Its like claiming you found a used Scott 3 or 4.???

Wait.... I thought of something . It could be a 199 with fake cancel.

Rgstamp, here is the back of it:

The stamp is in a rather poor condition, so, even if it would ever be certified as #199 it wouldn't have a very high market value, I suspect ...
To me, the value is given by the amount of work I put in researching and, who knows, perhaps I will be able to prove my theory (in its infancy, at the time being) that some Special Printings specimens were used, that some of the unused certified ones are not really what they are claimed to be, and that, out there, there still are stamps not yet recognized as Special Printings because of superficial information being transmitted from generation to generation as absolute axioms ...
... basically, I do believe that in a real Democracy, anyone has the right to believe in anything as long as his beliefs don't result in hurting others

rgstamp, there is a famous cover sent to Nashville TN franked with a #169, which I'd love to own. Special Printings could be and were used. Even 100 years ago, 15 cents had the buying power of about $4-$5 today. Do people go to the trouble of using $5 stamps today if the gum is accidentally washed off? Do they re-used $5 stamps that were not cancelled or barely cancelled? Of course they do.

It's very hard to believe that someone goes to the effort and expense (26c + 15c) of acquiring an ungummed 199, and then pasting it on a cover to use. Possible his descendents might have, but then the cancel wouldn't be contemptuous.

For some reasons, most people are educated to take at face value what a given authority is serving them. That is, to ignore the unofficial channels of propagation of information, or of provenance of merchandise, of any items (think of black-market) ...
For example, I know that in some printing houses of nowadays it is allowed for workers to keep items of little or no value (or over-stock). Or, another example, some individuals might help themselves of those items which will not be noticed if vanishing. Or, another example, the supposed destruction of several Thousands of stamps, which was never accurately documented ...

Well aug-stamps, it certainly is entertaining having you around - so thanks for that!

'Stirring the Pot' - as you represent with your icon - is always a good thing, when done with a bit of moderation. But it does start to get old, quickly!




Correct! But that doesn't make it true!! And others have an equal right to disagree...

Yes - you may believe in whatever you want. We do live (still? I believe?) in a democracy. I can believe in unicorns as well...

However:

Stamp identification is NOT a democracy. It is not a 'touchy-feely' subject. It is about cold, hard facts.

People have devoted their lives to studying stamps. (We call them 'philatelists'!) And they've been doing in-depth study for well over 100 years - with precision, accuracy, and many many eyes looking over their shoulders.

Is it possible that new information could come to light & dispel widely-held beliefs that have been maintained for 100 years? Sure...anything is possible. (Unicorns!)

But wild, extraordinary claims - with no evidence - well, I'll stick w/the history books, if you don't mind.

I will eagerly await the certs you get back from the Royal Philatelic Society!! That would be tangible evidence. Until then, it's just an amusing unicorn discussion...

aug-stamps, at least it would be nice if you would share some of your knowledge about the unicorn :), the A45a detail which is only there at the special printings. Then everybody could search his own special printings in his album.

but I can understand the frustration about some stamp definitions. if there is no clear difference between a special printing and a normal issue like for the American ones, questions come up, how the PF identifies a special printing exactly. I think many many questions here and directly to the PF would become unnecessary if they had some kind of "look how we work"-newsletter showing the process of certification for some exemplary stamps. Do they for example mainly check the color for an American special printing, or only the traces of gum and cancel, or something that Tipzi noted?

This issue we're talking about was available to the public though obviously few bothered. Think about it: ABNCo stamps printed on ABNCo paper doesn't sound that appealing. In any case, they were immediately available to collectors.

Accidents can always happen, but there have always been people who collect used only, who could put one on a letter and have it cancelled and handed back across the postal counter. I recall the report of a collector who was sold an imperf bicentennial souvenir sheet, (I think) at the 1976 INTERPHIL show, and wanted it used for whatever reason. So the collector took it back to the post office there where the clerk initially refused to cancel it not because he thought it was invalid. The clerk insisted that it was more valuable mint and should be kept that way(!) I think the collector finally got his cancelled s/s.

This is exactly what the seven volumes of the PF "Opinions" series were all about. They would look at special "problem" patients, and explain what they did to expertise them. Since you brought up the concept, you really owe it to yourself to check out some of these books (via inter library loan, perhaps. Or through the APS. Or hunt some of them down on ebay to buy. Start with their descriptions at the PF website.

thank you. I will do. Hopefully the special printings are also discussed. If I find out anything I will let you know.