Scott #178 Or 183 Possible Errors

Hi
I have 3 stamps - @ cent Jackson, no grills, vermilion, perf 12.

---The stamp on the left has a perf error and I cannot see if there is a secret mark on left scroll.
---The other 2 stamps do not have a secret mark. -
---The stamp in the middle is larger than the other two stamps. What stamp would that be? or is it an error?
---The stamp on the right has a natural crease in the margin. Is that considered an error?

Not errors, stamps in this era had wide perforation tolerances. As such, you can find many stamps like yours which exhibit size differences and larger then typical margins.
Don

Thanks

http://www.theswedishtiger.com/161-scotts.html

This link shows a perforated stamp without perforation on one side - allbeit the entire stamp is there. The stamp on the left side is similar, no?

No. First, an 'imperforated between' error requires two stamps. Second, your stamp is not imperforated. It is called a 'straight edge' and is the result of the stamps on the certain edges of the pane not being perforated. There was no need to perforate the stamp along that edge of the pane because they did not need to be separated from anything.

Here is an image which shows you how a typical sheet of stamps is cut up into 4 panes. The stamps along the red line are the 'straight edge' stamps (which can occur on side or top or bottom).


'Straight edge' stamps are typically worth less than fully perforated stamps because many collectors do not like them.

You can learn more from this website http://stampsmarter.com/1847usa/1847Home.html
http://stampsmarter.com/1847usa/187...Note02c.html
http://stampsmarter.com/1847usa/187...ntifier.html

Don

thanks

That is true most of the time, but not necessarily in this case. The stamp in question is not your typical straightedge, inasmuch as it shows printing on both sides of the center gutter. This is a special case known as a "straddle" and is more desirable when it shows a full four-margin image on one side of the gutter, and a recognizable amount of the image of the adjacent stamp from the opposite pane on the other side of the gutter. This stamp is of that kind, and if it is completely sound is a moderate premium item among specialists. Though they are not errors, they are nice to have because of the increased interest factor.

Here's something of the story:
Unlike the illustration Don gave, prior to 1890 the stamps known as the "large Banknotes" were printed on 200 subject plates. These were arranged in two panes of 100 separated from each other by a gutter which was not perforated. Instead, arrows were placed in the margins at top and bottom of the gutter to indicate to the printer where the panes were to be cut apart prior to issuing the stamps. However, the cutting did not always occur right down the gutter line, and could, at times, be off by quite a bit. Straddles resulted from that. Your example is a particularly good one.

Thank ou, essayk, for your explanation, it's also what I thought when I saw the stamp on the left: it's an interesting stamp, and there are collectors for this (like me). But of course, for a premium the stamp itself has to be sound and, even better, with good margins all around, like this one:
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...997-lot-5577

The original poster was thinking that they had an imperf rarity and was lead in that direction by seeing one posted on Swedish Tiger site; I was trying to lead them away from IDing stamps in this way.
Don

And good finds can be made by keeping your eyes open. Here is an arrow single cropped from a $1 box cover found last week at Omaha. Worth $1? It was to me.

@51studebaker said:


I saw that and agree with most of the corrective. However I wanted to correct the impression that the stamp was essentially worth less than a normal used example. It is not worth what a 98J would bring, but is worth more than a VF70 or 80. I would hate to see it torn up by someone who was p.o.'d that it isn't a howling rarity.

In a separate post I wish to address a common misconception about "perforation tolerances" on the BankNotes.

But first let me put out a word of warning about the treatment Swedish Tiger gave to the stamps of the CBNCO. In discussing 161d he wrote:




There are a couple of problems with the last paragraph in my quote. That paragraph appears as I quoted it directly under the 161d which is correctly attributed to the CBNCo above the pic, but in this paragraph is attributed to National "The first was the National Bank Note company and this stamp was printed by them." [emphasis mine] National designed and introduced the 10c design, alright, but the imperf between pair is not theirs.

The more serious problem is the final sentence in my quote. At no time did the Federal gov't ever acquire the ABNCo; it remained an independent contractor well into the 20th century, (reorganized in 1990s) and even now exists as an altered image of it's former self. When the Bureau took over stamp production in 1894 they used their own machinery. They did not license the machines ABNCo used inasmuch as those were proprietary to ABNCo who held patent rights as well as property rights.

STiger does okay with attributions, but his understanding of the historical narratives is filled with landmines. I would tread lightly.