Design A45A 2c Jackson - A Particular Mark Under The Left Scroll!!!

You're absolutely right, Don

Oh, no. Absolutely incorrect. It appears you are not paying attention to what I gave you to read. In siderography the transfer roll is not used to print to paper. It is the intermediary between die and plate.

May I request the page reference in Schueren? I think I need to see what you are looking at. Your interpretation of his comment parts company with the terms of Jacob Perkins' patent specification. I have some doubt.

I'm afraid your wild guesses about what could have happened are taking you to some strange places indeed. Proceeding from guesswork is very inefficient.

Essays, Chapter XVIII, the first page of 'India Paper Plate Proofs': Schueren is quoting Clarence Brazer.
Regarding the transfer roll, indeed, I am wrong: it transfers the design to the plate. So, the exploitation wearing is suffered by the plate on which the sheet of paper is laid down. My wrong

aug-stamps,
It is unclear to me if you set out to convince yourself or convince others that you had a special printing. Multiple solid reasons were given to you that explained why it wasn't but you continued to try to justify your hopes. To your credit, you knew enough to wrap it an 'educational' perspective so no one could call you out for simply pushing back as stubborn treasure hunting. But please be aware that folks invest a lot of time and effort in replying to posts. If history is any indication, it is not uncommon for some folks to stop responding if they think a person is not being straight forward. This is a great community and I think that abundant patience has been demonstrated so far; I thank everyone for their perseverance and resolve.
Don

aug-stamps, 183 is vermilion and 193 is brown.
that is also something some posts in this thread wanted to point out to you.

the starting problem of your research was that you don't have a high resolution image of your own stamp and no such of the other examples in the web. nevertheless you really got very helpful and detailed information here by really experienced collectors (that was also interesting for me to read and the others).

Stamperix, yes, my wrong indeed: #183 is vermilion.
Don, this stamp has an uncommon feature in form of the double impression on the back. Of course, that doesn't make it unique in any ways.
Regarding my questions around that particular mark under the scroll, I didn't start the post with any mean intentions. As I am at the very beginning of, hopefully, a long journey in Philately, I have soooooo much to learn. My learning process is a rather autistic one, with no apparent logic or apparent system behind it - this is just how I learn. If anyone is offended by this, then please accept my apologies in advance for any sort of nuisance or discomfort it might cause to you reading my posts or comments!
One fact remains: the stamp in question has that mark which is not common on other stamps - what Scott number the stamp exactly is, it is not a life or death matter to me. My work, as childish or immature might be in the eyes of those far more advanced in Philately, has value for me. For me and perhaps for others looking to learn about stamps - even if only by learning how not to approach the identification of a stamp. As you have already pointed out in a recent post.
Therefore, I would kindly ask the many of you far more knowledgeable to:
1. be patient with me;
2. correct me if you see me posting wrong statements;
3. remember, you also have started from scratch and your learning curve might have not always gone upwards
4. my post, as stupid or childish or illogical some might find it, has been the opportunity for some very precious and valuable information to be shared! ... and this is definitely in the spirit of this forum, if I understood the rules right.

Of course you can ask questions but...


(Just kidding you, figured we could use some humor.)

Don

that hurts

Then you might be more comfortable working at your own pace with this:



Dick Sine was an editor for the American Philatelist for a time, and knows his way around the broad stretches of the hobby. You might find this to be a good place to start, seriously.

But all kidding aside, my oldest son is an autistic adult. Profoundly so. At age 38 he has yet to utter his first sentence. We oversaw his education from one IEP to the next, and as his legal guardian I still oversee his IDP, so I get a little sensitive when Millenials try to pass off their problems with authority claiming some aspect of autism.

You may have developmental issues. Do they explain why in all your comments throughout this thread, especially your penultimate post, I see you calling on us to be forebearing and tolerant of your lack of experience, but I do not see you demonstrating deference or gratitude nor true humility.

Essayk, if the intercommunication on this forum HAS to be of a 'Sir, yes, Sir' or 'Yes, Memsahib' form then I am definitely the wrong type of user.
When you took personally a few general statements of mine, I treated it in the most reasonable way I could, mainly because I have no intention to enter personality based arguments. As you have seen, I come forward with my opinion and when I am proven wrong I acknowledge it. Usually, I give credit where credit is to be given and if I don't, it is not by mean intentions. Also, usually I thank the contributor for her/his information.
Being pacifist by nature, however, doesn't mean I am taking personal attacks lightly.
Therefore, Essayk, thank you very much for the wealth of knowledge you have shared with me and with others in my posts! ... and keep to yourself your opinions about my person. Erudition is no excuse for impoliteness! By contrary ...