US Revenue R27c Double Transfer All Over - Potential Value?

This is still the best stamp forum on the internet. I meant no offense really. Let me be the first to apologize to anyone I offended. I know how text responses can be taken out of context as their is no implied / applied expression. I just need to get the stamps I have expertised is all I should have said. At the very least that should stop me from going back and forth in the forum posts ad infinitum.

It will but it comes with a cost. The members that have responded to your query really are trying to save you the pain and financial burden. No one here roots against anyone finding a gem or buried treasure. The replies you received are from people with years of experience and piles of reference material.

Roger that stallzer.

Looks like Rumsey June 19 auction has a better example of this, in lot 1994.

No, that's a double impression. Different from a double transfer, and MUCH more scarce.

The Rumsey example is a double impression.

Okay I am sorry but I am still unclear what the difference is between a double impression and double transfer.

A double transfer is a plate variety, created by either slippage or a positional mistake which was not erased when the plate was made. That position will always show the double transfer every time that plate is used. A double impression is a printing variety, theoretically caused by going through the printing method twice, but usually caused by excess ink that was not cleaned off the plate before the next impression was created. Double impressions only happen that one specific time to that specific sheet.

Thanks Revcollector. SO transfer is repeatable because the plate was created with the doubling in it. Double impression is a one off that happens in the actual printing of the stamp. So a double impression should be rarer correct? Not maybe worth more but not as many made.

Hi,

If it helps any, you can scroll down in this thread to see examples of a double impression versus a double transfer.

https://goscf.com/t/63417

Jim

Theoretically yes. A double impression should be less common. But a double transfer is often only one position on a plate. It's only when a stamp has numerous double transfer positions, such as the 5 cent or $1.50 inland exchange, that they become fairly easy to come by. And survival rate is also a big part of it, and that is something that is almost impossible to specify.

The Philatelic Foundation generally applies the term "kiss impression" rather than double impression. Williams' Fundamentals of Philately says kiss impression is an umbrella term to describe the paper coming into contact with the inked printing plate more than once, and includes partial extra impressions.
The Scott catalogue does not seem to list double impressions, although they do list double transfers.
Nothing I've said takes away from the fact that specialists know far more than the expertizers or catalog editors in many cases.

In the revenue section of the Scott Specialized Catalogue, they most certainly do have "double impression" listings, and most have a minor letter, e.g., R18e, R28e.