Listing Of New Silk Paper Variety-R2d

Just received my 2020 specialized and see a new silk paper variety revenue has been added, anyone know where the listing comes from. As many of content changes come from SCF members.

Not from a PF cert. Probably from a PSE cert. If you mean the R2d, it cannot exist by all that is known of the Playing Cards stamps. When the government decided that all the proprietary taxes could be paid by either the Proprietary OR Playing Cards stamps, Butler & Carpenter retired all the Playing Cards plates years before the silk papers were issued. That is why all the Playing Cards values are relatively scarce except the perforated 2 cent blue. Fifty cents was probably a very common cost for a deck of cards, so it had a high issue quantity.

I contacted Amos Media about this new listing several weeks ago after consulting with both Eric and Richard about it. The 2-cent Playing Cards stamp was not printed after 1864, per The Boston Book, and thus there cannot be a silk paper variety as the 1st issue silk paper did not make an appearance until 1870. I have my suspicions as to where this listing recommendation originated, but I'll leave it at that.

There's likely an R2c floating around with some debris stuck in it that was misinterpreted as being silk paper.

Jim Kloetzel confirmed that the listing will be removed in the 2021 Volume 1A.

A few people have suspicions of where this listing originated. However it is likely to remain something of a mystery.

I'm getting the vibe that there is, let's say, something unethical going on here with this "new listing". If that is the case, and you guys called them out on it.... well done.

Lets just say "it's a possibility", but since no one really knows anything factual......

Sorry for leaving the catalogue number off the body of my original post. Yes, the R2d new listing for the one cent playing card stamp on what is reported to be silk paper.

Just to clarify, the one cent Playing Cards was also not printed after August 1864. My mention of the two cent was just for the scarcity comparisons.

If you have suspicions based on no evidence, then it's best to let it be. But if you have concrete reasons for your suspicions, then you are doing us (well, at least me) a disservice by not saying what those reasons are.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I only have suspicions based upon past incidents, not firsthand evidence. I can only speculate, hence not going into detail. I specifically asked Amos Media who submitted the R2d addition, but they did not answer that question.

In my opinion, the lack of transparency from the catalog publishers on how they determine which stamps get listed is lame. It does not seem to be a level playing field and sometimes appears to based upon the level of influence a person might have with a publisher.
Don

Undoubtedly.

Numerous little erroneous details can eventually pile up high enough to change one's perception of the overall usefulness of a catalog. I would hope Amos Media takes things like this seriously.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I only have suspicions based upon past incidents, not firsthand evidence. I can only speculate, hence not going into detail.

I am repeating this because it is exactly why I have said what I said and nothing more.

To achieve consistency, I would think the best approach would be to publish the listing criteria the publishers use. To be fair, it should be understood that making changes or evolving the criteria over time is acceptable. In my opinion, publishing the listing criteria would help consumers in having a better understanding of the catalog entries but also generate a greater confidence in the catalog.
I assume that most catalog publishers already have the listing criteria in some format internally, it seems to me to be a no-brainer to publish it. The reason(s) I can think of for not publishing it are pretty nefarious.
Don

Revcollector - can you share what you think could hypothetically be going on here, instead of circling with innuendo?
Not necessarily what happened, but what could have?