Expertising A 2c Washington

I was hoping someone could give me a positive id, it the scan is good enough.




Have a great night. Thanks Jeff

Falling asleep I realized that I omitted that it has watermark.

We like to have people try and identify stamps themselves first rather than just giving the answer. This one is pretty easy. There are only a couple of stamps that have that triangle design. Have you tried? Do you have Scott catalog? Someone will probably eventually tell you but give it a try!
http://stampsmarter.com/1847usa/189...ntifier.html

Geez, I've spent days analyzing about 80 type 3 and 4's. I was hoping to verify this as the 279bc but before spending $30 for expertizing I would run it by you guys first.

If you followed my recent posts you would see how hard I have been trying to identify and/or organize many 2c Washington's. I have hundreds more and am slowing building a range of issues that show both Type and color variations over time. I also have never scanned any document to learing how to get decent scans for you and I both. If I am wasting your time I apoligized, not my intention.

Leg work is tiring and I am trying to raise my confidence level, not have it tore down.

Once again, as always I appreciate any valuable feedback. Thank you.

Thanks rlsny: I learned even more from your link. The pieces of the puzzle may be getting clearer for me, we will see.

I like that he's unwilling to do. So I'll have a go at it.

Definitely a III or a IV - No lines through the triangle frame.

So, let's see..... Hair line looks long. Toga button sure looks wider than tall. Dots in ear look pretty strong to me.

I'm no expert but in my very, very humble opinion.......Type IV. And I'll give you a cert. on that!!! Hahahhhaaa

And I appreciate your sense of humor rlsny!

I not here to prove anything, I am NOT a stamp collector but trying to learn some stuff before I get too obsolete.

Type IV, I can see; but colors...well...I'm trying.

Color??

Is it a Rose Carmine 279Bc? Wow, could it be! Color is way to subjective on computers. It definitely looks like it could be but the only way to tell is to see the stamp in person and compare the color. No way for someone to give you what you are looking for without the stamp in front of them.

jb100056, Pondering this thread so far, I will add that not everyone follows every thread, nor remembers how far along every collector is in their studies. Thus I too would have given the advice noted by rlsny to try stampsmarter or a similar resource. The added info in the later posts would have been helpful in the first post. It is not wasting our time, just a matter of efficiency to provide as much background and factual information as early as possible in the discussion.

That said, if I may restate your question, you have a 279B (note the uppercase B), and are hoping it is one of the better shades, specifically the (lowercase) "c" shade of rose carmine. Correct? No doubt you have read several threads here about judging colors and shades via scans and monitors. Two recommendations come to mind. 1) as I stated in an earlier thread to you, assemble a collection of on-cover dated examples. Certain colors first appear rather late in the printing history. Loose stamps just don't tell as much of a story. 2) scan the stamp in question with stamps of known shades in the same scan. It gives us a fighting chance at an opinion on your shade.

Yes, I was assuming a simple case of 279B with my post. Rare shades are rare, so I didn't consider that. Just looking at it on the screen it looks fairly typical for a 279B to me, kind of too bright for a bc. But as others have said judging color online -especially subtle differences like that is almost impossible.

Got it!

I did use another controversial resource: Scott Specialized Color Guide for US Stamps, which included Scott 267 abd 279B, etc. In natural light I saw the closest match to Rose Carmine. I have many other stamps that did not so I thought I would reach out for confirmation. I should have said as much from the start I guess, but somehow I seem to always show you guys my backside.

I'm glad I did, because, as usual I learned much from the critiques.

By the way, I did catch the "stamp on cover" recommendation by John Becker.

Does that include stamps still on paper but vandalized, so to speak?

I do have covers that I have not cataloged yet and may have some examples. Your suggestion was not wasted on me. Thanks again.

Because someone asked.




The stamp in question is 5th from left, but feel free to critique.