This Is An Area I'm Not That Used To Working With...help With Scott 21(?)

It's a fascinating discussion...I truly admire everyone's patience & dedication...

If they deleted #s 5-9 & #s 18-24 from the catalog, I would not lose any sleep...

Strike that...a bit too much bourbon talking...

There should be a #5 & a #18. Everything else is superfluous...

daz24 - Hi ! Its been a long time.

Only one person I know uses the word "interstitial", and he is Mr Relief Bruise himself.

Very nice to see you here - I hope you'll drop by often.

I'm the TX 1c guy you used to know in another life.

Funny and timely that you mention that. More than you know.

daz24 wrote an article not too long ago essentially on the subject, of -- metaphorically, "now that we've made a mess of the categorization of the 1c stamp - where do we go from here?".

My words, not his, but I see that as the gist of what he was saying. There were legitimate reasons that the 1c listings got so complicated and involved. Should we do anything about it and if so, what, at this point?

If there was only a Scott 5 and 18, I would be bored and go back to collecting baseball cards

rg - I agree with you on that. The complexity of the issue was probably the first thing that attracted me to it.

One big question is do you force this complex system on every general collector, by making major Scott numbers for the types, or do you maybe still have the types but not have major numbers for them, for example.

Of course having major Scott numbers changes the economics of the stamp world, so I seriously doubt there will be any going back there -- and I'm not advocating that there should be really.

I believe that daz24 was just suggesting that a discussion be had on where we are with classifying the stamp, and where, if anywhere, that we might want to go with it.

I guess that means I should sell off my 3 pages of Scott 11-11A (double frame lines, double impressions, major re-cuts, etc.)

No one would suggest that we throw away all the great information that we have on the 1c and 3c stamp .. to the contrary, we want to promote collecting of these and other stamps even more if possible, leveraging the gory detail that is already known.

One way to look at it is, we got to where we are, because Chase, Ashbrook, and others, didn't know the full picture at the outset, when Types and some varieties were defined. If they had started, with the full picture in front of them, would we have the same Types and varieties that we have now? Possibly not.

Clearly not. As we not have 10 and 10A; 11 and 11A; 36 and 36B; etc. We did not have those major Scott numbers when I was a kid.

There are odd cases where a stamp in a single position on a single plate changes from a type IIIa to a type III due to plate wear. On another issue, that would just be an EFO.

Personally I am fascinated by all the subtle differences, and I just had to order more blank pages and another binder to hold everything.

Dave, thanks for joining and here's hoping you'll stick around!

On this patient, the broken frame on the bottom left side curls up and doesn't come close to crossing underneath the "E" in "ONE". There isn't a lot of room in the upper left, but I'd think there would be enough to see scribe lines and for plate 5,7,8 if it was "A" relief, we'd see 2 guide dots in the upper right. This stamp has none of these. It does look like there is a possible indentation above the "ST" of postage, but can't see it clearly with this one. That's why a couple of us were talking about "E" relief with this stamp. I can't tell well at all here.

But, other than the dot, it doesn't have the other three features of an "A" relief stamp at all. Could this be something other than an "A" relief stamp?

Thanks, Ray

There is almost no chance that it is anything other than an E relief.

I would also like to know what mdroth collects.

I still think 41R7

Is this type II? I put it in my album as a #7 several years ago. Was I right?

Fred,

Trimmed Scott 24? Type V