Hello mootermutt, stampcrow, and all --
Regarding the discussion about expert certification of color varieties on the 1851 - 1857 3-cent imperforate issue -- a few thoughts...
First off -- regarding other SCF discussion threads on this topic -- I am very interested in reading what others have had to say -- and have tried using the SCF search utility without success -- so if anybody could provide a link to the relevant thread(s) it would be much appreciated.
I have been collecting the 1851 - 1857 3-cent issue for over 25 years -- and for most of that time, my primary interest was in color study. In my opinion -- and again, this is just my opinion -- certifying color varieties -- regardless of the expertizing agency -- can be problematic for a number of reasons. First -- is access to confirmed reference material. Second, is the expertise of the folks who are looking at the stamp and comparing it to the confirmed reference material (which for years has been the basic expertizing process). And third, when it comes to color varieties -- and especially the scarce to rare ones where an otherwise $10 stamp becomes a "four figure" stamp based solely on its color -- getting two "experts" to agree on a subtle difference in hue is not always as straightforward as one might think.
Much has been written about the pitfalls and problems associated with color study -- for example -- About how we all see color differently. About how the color of the paper, the inking, and the impression all have an impact on the color we see when we look at the stamp. About how the lighting -- and the source of the lighting -- can change the way we see colors. About how colors can change over time due to the environment, storage conditions, and exposure to other external factors, etc., etc. More recently, some have taken a scientific approach toward color study based on the chemical composition of the ink and other "scientific" analysis. I will not get into any of those discussions here -- other than to acknowledge that all of these factors -- and others that I have not bothered to list -- are of legitimate concern when it comes to color study -- and likewise -- the certification of colors.
The current color classification system most widely accepted among most (but not all) students of the issue all spins off of Chase's master color chart. This is the chart that Chase bequeathed to Amonette -- and which can be viewed at stampplating.com using the following link:
http://www.stampplating.com/colorsAs far as I am aware -- Amonette was the only person (other than Chase) to ever possess and have complete unfettered access to Chase's master color chart -- and following Amonette's passing in May 2014 the whereabouts of the Chase master color chart still remain unknown (at least to me). As far as I know, it has never appeared at auction -- so is either still owned by Bill's family, was sold privately, or who knows? In any event, over the years, Amonette made up color reference charts by matching stamps to Chase's master chart -- and those "second generation" charts, generally speaking, became the primary source of reference material for others to use in colorizing stamps of the 1851 - 1857 3 cent imperforate issue. Within the group of color students that I have associated with over the years, many of us would colorize stamps and send them to Bill for his confirmation -- and then use the "Amonette confirmed" material to build out our own color reference sets.
Even with access to a fully confirmed set of color reference material -- a further complicating variable that I feel compelled to mention, and one that seems to always cause "color confusion", is the conundrum of what us color students call "in-between" colors. In other words -- a color that does not fit nicely within one of the "typical" Chase classifications. For example -- a stamp that is half way between "1852 brownish carmine" and "1853 dull red"; or, a stamp that has "some copperish", but not enough to be called "copperish OB". I have plenty of "in-between" colored stamps in my own color chart -- and some of the most disappointing to me were ones where Bill would opine something like -- "very close to 1857 plum, but has a touch of 1857 yellowish brown" -- or in another case -- "very close to the 1856 pinkish -- but has a little 1856 yellowish rose red mixed in" -- and my last example -- "might have some 1851 experimental orange brown, but closer to 1852 brownish carmine". And the possibilities are infinite.
Enough of my rambling -- as I could write volumes on this subject. Suffice to say that when it comes to debating (or certifying) colors -- after all the dust settles and all the smoke clears -- in my opinion, and again, this is only my opinion -- if one is going to get serious about color study, then one must acquire confirmed reference material and learn to be their own expert. In my view, a certificate from one of the recognized expertizing bodies (especially on the scarce to rare colors) is worthless unless the names of the expertizers are on the face of the certificate -- (and further provided that the name(s) of any expert who disagreed with the final opinion should not be listed just because they "looked" at the stamp -- or better yet, those experts who looked at the stamp, but who disagree with the final opinion should be listed as disagreeing -- but we all know that will never happen).
Regards // ioagoa
PS -- see the attached photo which explains in a single picture why there are so many color varieties on this issue. Acknowledged that this photo is from the archives of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing which did not exist circa 1851-1857 -- but one can only imagine how the inks were mixed by TCC over the 7 year period that the stamp was produced.
Posted 08/26/2020 4:28 pm
