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

[Revcollector, Essayk and other earlier posters I wish to thank. I thought I had these issues down after spending a rainy afternoon in the PF and PSE database examing these issues.CFRphoto added fine lines to the equation which I included into my deliberations. In summary I now feel both of my mh issues of 155 and 166 should be expertised. I do have a 191 w/c but I find that is no help.I thought 155 had a greyish tint, not so much as the blueish paper issues, but more so than the 166. Go figure.
regards mark


Added thought. I worked with the ARC years ago, (the old, Association of Retarded Citizens), and one of the lessons I learned was that everyone, everyone has strengths and everyone,everyone has weaknesses.
m

As a WW and US specific collector of 50 years I will tell you that when it comes to something that is best described as "almost indiscernible difference" the 155 vs 166 fits the bill.

Over the years I have closely examined six figures worth of stamps from around the World for ID and value to see if they are worthy of 102 card status with a minimum CV of $5. Specifically I look for catalog listed varieties that could be color, perforations, watermarks, design related, gum, paper, etc. The 155/166 US catalog numbers stand out still as gratuitously minute in difference. In a world where obvious color differences are almost uniformly assigned minor catalog numbers (think of the multiple Lake varieties as an example) someone decided that collectors had to have these two Perry's or else face the dreaded empty album space.

I see no other reason than to sell more. If you are going to major a carmine rose but not a cracked plate Franklin you have an agenda beyond creating a reasonably comprehensive and logical representation of issued stamps in album format.

Plate varieties never get a major number, be they double transfers, cracked plates, or any other variety. But 155 and 166 were issued by different bank note companies, and so are considered different stamps. The biggest difference between those two tends to be in the impression, due to the paper differences. The shades may or may not be noticeably different.

Well, except of course, when the error was putting 5s on a plate of 2s they all got their own number.


Registered one ounce letter, WWI letter rate. 5s ruled as only worth 2c.

That is not a "plate variety". That was an error. Just as inverted centers are not "plate varieties". And it got a separate catalog number in large part because minor letters a-i were probably already taken for 499, just as they are now. So it would have been easier to simply avoid adding to the already long entry of 499; since they all were issued in 1917 that seems likely to have been a possible reason. And of course there were far fewer stamps issued at the time, even under the old numbering system it was just easier to do it that way.

It is and remains a plate variety, as the issue arises from the plate as a transfer roll impression issue. As to being considered an error, it is the color, red, that makes the stamps different from the normal issue of blue. Minor issues such as plate varieties and miscuts ( e.g.imperforate pairs arising from booklet panes) can and do rise to the level of "error" in the EFO terms of art, just rarely so.

Of course inverted errors are not plate varieties, each printing plate is correct, the placement of the paper was the issues.

Now I do not play with the single digit US Scott numbers, but am I wrong to think some of those numbers appear on one plate at times? They too got full numbers, correct?

Likewise, being an error in no way diminishes as stamp. The 85A is an error, a doubled grill error and as its price exceeds the C3a, it is the most expensive US EFO.

Now,I no longer have access to my listing of world wide inverts, but I do not recall one of them ever begin a single plate, single color version.

I doubt that you will find very many who would consider those stamps plate varieties. They are errors of both position as a multiple and color. I suppose by that logic, you consider the Mauritius "Post Office" issue a plate variety as well.

Here is the generally accepted term of art for Plate Variety:

(from: https://www.efocc.org/Resources/Hot...AA_Cover.php )

I seem to need to point out that an item can be more than one specific thing at a time: Remember all squares are rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares; meaning squares are rectangles but a special subset of rectangles.

Here that mean while 467, 505 and their relatives are errors of color AND they are plate flaws in as much as the wrong transfer roll use is, "any physical alteration to the plate, intentional or not, resulting in a nonuniform stamp that can be identified and matched to a specific location on a plate...." The 5 cent were non-uniform to the 2 cent plate.

EDITED TO ADD: The flaw comes in two varieties, a single and a pair.

So ends the lesson.

"Lesson" notwithstanding, it is still listed and generally thought of as an error, and not as a plate variety. And at this point, that they have separate catalog numbers is pretty irrelevant to the general fact that plate varieties get minor numbers if they get one at all.

rogdcam wrote:



That the color differences are minute is not denied by anyone. But TWO companies used the same plates to produce certain stamps of certain denominations (in this case a 90c, but the 24c and 30c as well). The second company used inks which they mixed by their own formula, probably with materials (paper, ink, gum) from different suppliers (maybe/maybe not).

This all was being done at a time when the year date often did not appear in a cancellation. Discrimination by date of use is less accessible.

How do YOU think experienced philatelists should handle the collecting of this output?
Pretend that only one company printed these stamps? Indiscriminately assign two such stamps to the two available slots? Pretend that one of the companies did not issue any at all (vis a vis 24c phenomenon)?

Over the 20th century collectors hit on the convention of assigning one of two close but distinct color shades to each of the companies. That is an honest philatelic solution to the conundrum. All the stamps of both companies are collectable by this approach. (But good luck finding another 24c.)

Gouging collectors had nothing to do with their motivation as philatelic students. How the situation has been exploited for gain is another matter.