Great Britain, Scott 34, 34B?

This is confusing to me. Scott 34 (SG 79) is the 4 pence version with large garter. I've verified the watermark on these examples. Scott 34b (SG 81/82) is listed as the same watermark, but with hairlines in the corners. However, my copy of Stanley Gibbons attempts to help clarify with a small note:

"4d. Plate 3. No hair lines. Roman I next to lower corner letters.
4d. Plate 4. Hair lines in corners. Roman II"

I'm pretty confident about this one, as I see the hairlines, and a clear Roman II in the lower corners.


But now I had to look twice at this other one that I thought was also 34b, hairlines, in all four corners. What I don't see is the Roman II, unless it is inked over?


This is further annoying me because stamp #3, which I purchased as a Scott 34, no hairlines, seems to have a small indication in the upper right, but is clearly Roman I.


So what indication should I be using? Seeing one or more hairlines, or seeing Roman I versus II? Just wondering.

Hi Partime,

The third stamp is SG 79. The absence of hairlines in the other three corners confirms. Not sure what's going on with the UR corner.

No hairlines equates to Roman I and hairlines equates to Roman II as far as I can tell.

The hairlines on the second stamp appear to be thinner than the first stamp. Is this caused by over-inking, thus giving the appearance of a Roman I?

Since the Roman I in stamp #2 is also thin, a general over-inking does seem possible. Hard, however, to base identification on a supposition such as that. Why not try RetroReveal? http://retroreveal.org/