Scott's Cataloge R18e Controversy

I just wrote about how some people are not seeing the r18e stamp as Scott's catalog wrote and they are depending on what people are deciding this stamp is on a web site .so I'm sending picture of what its says.
I hope its not copyright infringement but I think this is why I paid for this book to identify a stamp .
.

What is the controversy?

Printed on both sides means that the stamp was actually printed on both sides, not with set-off or reverse image on one side.

Do you have a scan or reference image you are referring to regarding a controversy about this stamp?

Also, "printed on both sides" means a printed image on the front and back sides of the stamp, which is different than a double impression, which is where two distinct impressions on the same side of the stamp.

This is what Im talking about this was just posted on my other post and Im just following up on it ,sorry if its confusing.
Hello everyone Im back and have new info I researched on the internet .
First ,here is a copy of the Scott's catalog 2005.
Also I just read a story about someone in this stamp community that says he paid I think 200.00 for a r18e stamp and someone told him it wasn't one because it wasn't a double image .here's the page https://www.stampcommunity.org/topi...IC_ID=61910& if you would like to know.
also there's the website called revenue-collector ,https://revenue-collector.com/usrevs.shtml that explain the type of papers great to see .This might be the reason people are thinking there r18e isnt right or wrong or just dont know or not enough info something not right also I cant find any other pictures of this stamp I wonder why?
Well there is a r18e on this site http://www.usphila.com/us/stamp/pri...t-r18-page-1 and its said to be made from "other" paper not "old paper" "not painted on both sides" which Scott's catalog claim to be r18e.
An no mention of of the double image in the catalog.So which one is correct for future references. Its also funny that the main reason it's a r18e is because of the back of the stamp and no mention of the back of the stamp on the website revenue collector and no picture of the back of a stamp with old paper that I could see.

Dan - There is a lot of unnecessary confusion here. From Scott United States Specialized 2017 edition your stamp is an R18c. R18e is a double impression variety of R18c. R18f is your stamp printed on both sides. How else can this be explained to you. Perhaps this is all because your catalog is outdated. Things change. That is why new reference books such as Scott catalogs are updated constantly and published yearly.

That's great to know so one year you just paid 500.00 the next year its 50 cents

Dan - That simply isn't the case. Just because they change a minor listing (i.e. letter) in the catalog doesn't in any way change the value of the stamp. Things that change the value of the stamp are new auction results, new discoveries of large numbers of a previously rare stamp, etc. When they changed the listing for R18e printed on both sides to R18f printed on both sides it didn't suddenly become worthless. It suddenly became R18f instead of R18e. Regardless, the stamp you posted a picture of was an R18c in 2005 and is an R18c in 2018 and will still be an R18c as long as it exists.

This doesn't explain the old paper issue does it .

Hi Dan,

Maybe this will help?

This is R18b:


This is R18e:



This is R18f:


There are currently two known copies of this variety. The catalog value is meaningless.

This is R18c with a double transfer:


And this is R18c with a pre-printing paper fold:


Jim

Dan,
A word of advice, always start with the assumption that you have the most common, inexpensive stamp. Assume this because they printed millions (or billions) of the common stamps. Rare is just that, rare. If you allow yourself to believe that you have a rare stamp, conformation bias makes it very hard to listen to reason. The folks in this community are very experienced and have a lot to offer,
Don

Here's another example of printed on both sides.

Jim

One more...

Jim

That is very well put, Don. In the coin business, we call it right-hand column syndrome-the assumption that your coin equates to the highest grade at the right side of the price sheet. Just last week, I had to spend 15 minutes explaining why somebody's copper plated steel cent purchased at Sears-Roebuck in 1968 wasn't a genuine copper pattern worth millions. Once somebody convinces themself that they won the lottery, it's very hard to tell them otherwise. Yes, common sense dictates if there is a common version which exists in the millions, that's probably what you have. Rare stamps seldom turn up in some old inherited album or grandma's dresser drawer. And as you further pointed out, when in doubt run it by the knowledgeable folks on this forum. You may not always hear the answer that you're looking for, but there is a good chance you will hear the correct one.

The problem is that 3 or 4 or 5 times a year there is a media story about someone finding some rare stamp, or coin, or painting, or something, and people start thinking it happens every day. Which is because they don't see the tens of millions of times where someone found something and it is not something rare, and it is not worth anything.