Help With 1875 Re Issues...

Hello community, its been some time. Been going through my collection and hunting/searching auctions off and on the last few years. Recently got more into pre 1890s and its been a bit confusing with the diff paper types even with all the info out there and on this forum. It would be nice if Siegel put a pic of the back of the certified stamps along with the fronts to compare with in the census's. Few questions in regards to design, colors, and paper. Ya Im sure its all covered in other post but want a fresh prospective. Anyways, is Scott 103 the only 1875 re issues with secret marks ie mole on face and 3 dots in upper left scroll even though the grilled series has those. Next, why are there 1861 series stamps that have really white paper yet arent the hard white paper? There are still color variations from some census's that are way diff but labeled the same such as Scott 104, you have some brown/red and some are like scarlet/red and some brown, yet they are all certified as the same stamp. I do get weathering/aging but wouldnt change the color that much at least for the other re issues. Also says hard paper isnt as fiberous but I see the siegel examples and compare the perf edges and they look just as fiberous if not more on some then the non hard paper.

Anyways the reason I brought all this up is because my knowledge has come to a hault with these stamps and Johnny 5 needs more input

I have come across a nice used Scott 73 and what appears to be a Scott 103. The only thing that doesnt really compute, is that the 73 paper is brighter white than the alleged 103. The 73 being on the left and the 103 on the right. The 103 paper isnt as bright but it has no grill, three dots in upper left scroll design, and appears to have a mole spot though the cancel is over that area. Though the certified 103 on census stamps dont look really white either like mine. Any and all info is much appreciated and thank you.

I will try to answer your question regarding color variations for stamps assigned the same catalog number (the brown/red/scarlet issue). If you are seeing different colors on a site such as Siegel Power Search it is because these stamps were photographed or scanned at different times, with different equipment, with varying types of light and people with varying skill.

You can only do a relative color comparison if the stamps are scanned together. Even then, an absolute color comparison is still not possible.

I'm aware of the mole issue, but not the three dots. I don't see the mole, but hard to be certain. There are only 26 known used copies of 103 so don't get your hopes up. Do you have a pointer to something about the three dots?

Until now I thought that all 103 are type III (star on cheek and 2 or 3 dots in the UL), but not all types III are 103. But it's true that these types (or dies?) are somehow a bit hidden in the philatelic world. It seems that type III without grill is more scarce but Scott does not list the types, I also wonder why.

Germania, I appreciate your input. Yes the diff scan equipment is obvious but unless they had a diff scanner for each one (some newer ones have diff tones) it should be being done in a controlled environment ie didnt know there are diff conditions between a piece of glass and top plate or skill level to place it there on a scanner.

rlsny, my hopes are always up. It is what it is. Dont get me wrong, I've been collecting for 23 years off and on. To some, collecting is there life and dont like us who are mostly in it for the exciment of hunt/finding rear stamps. Some comments on this forum reflect that and if we never look or "give hopes up" on a possibility, is prob why theres only small numbers of these stamps found. Always be looking as most that gave up hope dont get the find/ na sayers. I wasnt aware of the 3 dots either and seen the Scott 73 on left I have which looked like it had a mole in the right place but found out about the 3 dots from a previous/past post on this forum about the 73 or 103 I think. Then I checked Siegel census and all have the 3 dots, which I guess is called type 3 and a few barely have the mole like mine. So I got back online and found this about 3 weeks later I won for $9. So even if its not 103, Im fine with that. Regardless I am sending in to PF.

Stamerix, Yes, not sure why they are not listed but was anaware there were others without grill or mole but have the 3 dots but not 103. Is that what you are saying? May I ask your source on your info on that?

FYI.......
https://goscf.com/t/41379&SearchTerms=103

There it is. Thank you Gator. That proof looks like same tone of paper even though comments before saying the paper needs to be bright white. So theres ones with 3 dots and mole and no grill not on white paper? Its all process of elimination. It has 3 dots, could have a mole since hard to see with cancel (just like half of the certified ones are hard to see mole) and doesnt have a grill. So that leaves just the paper to comfirm. Should be it with all those indications unless like I said there are ones with all the right marks but not hard white paper.

Hello, yes this is what I thought, but Bill Weiss said in the mentioned thread above that the dots and the star on a stamp without a grill is always a 103, which should be true then. On the other hand I saw such stamps some time ago that were ungrilled but had this type and were not 103, but stamps which should be grilled but "missed" the grill. If you read the Scott or Micarelli definition about the reissue you always read about the very white paper and the important contrast of the very black ink of the 2c Jackson, both is not present in your stamp. But it's always difficult to say this over internet scans.

I am also interested in more opinions of other members who have made more collecting and researching about the 2c Jackson, whether the definition of Bill Weiss is correct, and what to tell about the stamp of the OP here.

PS: Of course, most important is if there is the star on the cheek at all... you need to look under magnification and post a high resolution scan of just this area.

The 103 has a sharp proof-like impression and your stamp does not even come close. Look at a real 103's crosshatching in the portrait background and within the upper and lower panels. You can send it for a cert based upon a mole/star that you cannot see but it seems a folly.

Thank you very much for the info Stamperix. I will try to get a high res scan of that area. Ok, so possibilty its a missed grill which I thought the grilled issues had moles too and if was missed still would have mole. Ya, I went to Bills site and just learned of his passing this past year as I havent been doing much stamp activity last few years. He certified my 64a pigeon blood in my previous posts which I grabbed for $20 from a guy sellig mostly baseball cards. This first one in the cencus, ink not as black, paper not bright, mole has no star, just a light shade spot, yet is certified as 103. is why my questioning.

Call the PF.

May I ask the reasoning you say to call the PF rogdcam?..

I called couple days ago to confirm the sending in process and mentioned 103, but think we both know they dont have the time to discuss or have any explanations over the phone unless they had the stamp sitting in front of them but thanks for your thoughts. That being said, will be sending in. Also, Im not sending in based on the mole, its the 3 dots and no grill Im basing it off of. As for the condition ie dark ink ect., its used and other copies show worn ie weathering. Though maybe neigh sayers are right, there will be only 26 found and the other 953 are lost forever and no more rarities shall be found

Best of luck. Please share the result.

Thank you rodgcam, I appreciate it and will def post the results in about 30-45 days lol. Hopefully if not a 103 then some explination of whatever they determine. I think my questions have been answered to the best of the communities knowledge and thank you all for your insight. Btw, this was the other from census that the ink isnt as dark and not bright paper.