90c Banknotes, National Vs Continental (155 Vs 166)

I too have just started down the path of the 155 vs 166 vs 191 identification. The stamps below were identified to me as #155 and #166. I'm quite confident that neither are soft porous paper and so that would rule out #191. There is a bit of a color difference and the design on the 2nd stamp is just not a strong. When holding up to a lighted background and I can see through both stamps fairly clearly, but the 2nd stamp seems a bit on the thinner side. Also, the 2nd stamp paper is whiter. Just wondering what others think based on these scans. They were scanned at 1600 dpi together, but I split them apart to provide as much detail as I could.

#155


#166

Based on the scans I think you might have them backwards. The idea that has worked best for me is 166 is a warmer color, 155 cooler. The top stamp looks like a warmer rose carmine and the second one looks much cooler. Scans are always risky, but that's my vote.

That is a tough one - I ended up sending a couple into PF over the past few years just to be sure. To me, the 155 is a bit "lighter". It's odd to me but I thought adding a rose tint to the color (as 166 does) would lighten it - the opposite of what my eyes see.

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I cannot really be sure unless they are expertized. As I said, the catalog number I wrote is what the previous owner had assigned. I'm just hoping that they are not both the same as my goal is to complete each set.

Canyoneer ... my certified 155 & 166 seem to be the reverse of yours, with the 155 the darker of the two. The certs (not shown) are by PSE.
Added: the 166 also has an older PF cert.
155 on the left ... 166 on the right

JL, Yours look more like I'd expect. Your 166 looks "rosier". Maybe it has more to do with detail of impression? I think same plates were used. National turned them over to Continental after using them. Maybe there's
a PF or PSE staff expert that can chime in.

JL, Looking at yours, I'm not seeing either of mine being a 155.

A reference collection is really the only way to check a single example.

NicholasC ... I agree with revcollector. These two are too close to call without a really good group of already-identified examples. Hmm .... lots of twos in that sentence.

When stamps are so alike that seasoned collectors struggle to tell them apart I really question the motivations behind assigning different catalog numbers. The cynic in me thinks that dealers were simply creating spaces to fill. That could never be the case though.

Totally agree. You also gotta wonder why they didn't do secret marks on all the denominations. I mean, why for some and not for all.

Agreed. Its often a fine line as to whether or not something should get a separate catalog listing, or just remain a specialist item. Its fine to have detailed delineations of material, based upon how much we know about things, but getting a major catalog number? That's definitely its own separate discussion.

There have been numerous major catalog number changes over time, which I wish had not been made. One in particular, long ago, I recall was made at the behest of a certain collector who had a large holding of a particular item, and the change only enriched him, and made life much harder for the average collector, who will have no idea how to identify these items.

The Banknotes pose a difficult problem here with the obvious company & paper ways that one is tempted to categorize them by. Its really tempting to do it the way it has been done, but it is also not without major problems, clearly.

Unfortunately, once the categorizations are made, its hard to make major overhauls without adversely financially impacting people who have made significant investments in the existing way of doing things.

rogdcam wrote:



Since your comment appears in the context of discriminating a 155 and a 166, I raise an eyebrow that you take issue with the challenge of discriminating the products of two different stamp production companies. Throwing in the towel in that case makes me question the "seasoning" of said collector.

In my experience, color discrimination online cannot convincingly be done. The serious "seasoned" collector must learn how to see the differences when the actual stamps are in hand (so to speak). They cannot be THAT hard inasmuch as by the time I finished high school, I had pretty much mastered the banknotes (except for the Special Printings). But that was entirely in-person viewing; online did not yet exist.

When Continental succeeded National as the production company, they assigned Charles Skinner the task of adding marks to the dies which would differentiate product of the new company from the old. In those circles that was a big deal, and half a century later Clarence Brazer championed the theory that these were "die cancellation" marks.

Nicolas C wrote:



Actually, Continental did do secret marks for all the denominations, on the dies. But they did not make new plates for certain denominations (24,30,90) since the original plates still served well. The plate for the 90c purple of 1888 was the very same plate used for all the 90c Banknotes, as made by National BNCo.

These were actions intended to differentiate product. Not collectors, per se. Yet, any collector worth his salt needs to master these things; which are in the nature of "serious collecting." As for scamming collectors (you can take your tongue out of your cheek now rog). No one says you HAVE to collect them.

Lot's of folks who can't cut it skip the Banknotes. But in some circles if you really want to be a "seasoned" collector, then you do have to know how.

@essayk, thanks for that education!

There are many kinds of "seasoned collectors". Banknotes is only one. And knowing them well takes time, effort, and a LOT of material. Plus a fair amount of reading. Mentors are also good to know. And even with all of that, some collectors will never be very good with them. Every collector has strong areas and weak areas.