US C34 1946 10c Pan-American Bldg - Help Identify Re-Entry

By an identical stamp - are you saying find one with the exact same re-entry?

Well I've investigated these before. To me - it's worth it to find out and know - rather than not.

I've made a habit of getting to the bottom of things... but I've been loose on my stamp terminology.

A similar example of an investigation would be this...

Togo "1919" S.C. #20 3pf brown - Double impression:
https://goscf.com/t/73565

Terminology is very important to distinguish between double entry and double impression. These are different causes to somewhat similar effects.

That said, there were only 6 plates for this C34 issue. 4 wet printing plates and 2 dry printing plates. Each plate with 200 impressions. Thus the haystack is quite small to examine. At most, 24 panes of 50 and even fewer panes if you narrow down the wet/dry method. This issue was released over 70 years ago and French and others have not noted anything resembling what you claim. It you think this is a double entry, then this is your put up or shut up moment to trudge through the haystack of the panes and find the confirming copy. One copy does not prove anything.

Seems to me that the Togo example and this one fall into the exact same types of area. Some extra ink spots on the Togo, and either some extra ink spots or some dirt on the airmail. Wishing does not create plate or printing varieties.

Why has the forum become so exhausting and argumentative? In response to your reply "this is your put up or shut up moment" and "One copy does not prove anything."

By your method or standard - for every stamp that's expertized, if the expertizer does not receive a matching stamp to prove the findings, the stamp can not be what it is - even if it actually is what it is. I wonder where else this would apply as nothing in existence is identical. It really isn't. I really can't think of anything but in scientific method or testing to get the same results. Not in evidence, not in the court of law, not even in all sample testing will you get the same results. Some things - I'm afraid - are just unique. Like you. Like me. Like stamps. And by your logic "One copy does not prove anything." Since you are one copy, do you prove nothing? No one else is like you - so are you saying that you can't exist?

The gold standard for claiming that a true double transfer has been found, is to find a confirming copy.

This is nothing new, and is how, at least US stamp collecting has treated double transfers for as long as I can remember. In fact, there have been some famous debates, as to the validity of certain one-off (only a single copy) purported double transfers.

Printing varieties of all sorts are all too common, which is why this standard is and must be applied.

I do have a degree in science.
The common method to demonstrate the proof of a double transfer is to find a confirming copy because it is a plate variety and multiple identical copies will exist. I do not believe I am being argumentative. I merely outlined the short path to proving or disproving your claim.

I don't think anyone is being argumentative. Re-entry has a specific meaning, a position was re-entered on the PLATE. It repeats every time the plate is printed.

What you are showing us are unique ink marks, very likely un-repeatable, which in the case of this airmail do look like parts of the design.

The Togo stamp is probably set off from set off if you know what I mean. Not even close to a double impression. Sorry, that's just a fact.

m and m I don't think so. It looks smudged or dirty or both.

"Why has the forum become so exhausting and argumentative?"
You are trying to claim something extraordinary (that something so visually obvious has gone unnoticed for as a constant variety 73 years) and a single example does not prove what you claim.

It feels like stamps I use to call 'badly centered' are now called 'major errors', stamps I use to call 'poorly printed' are now called 're-entries'.
Don

I agree, Don. It seems that any imperfection deserves to be classified with a Scott sub-number. Not!

Jack Kelley

No offense is intended, but I don't think you understand how plate varieties work. They require confirming examples in order to make sure they are not just inking or printing anomalies or other one-off aberrations. This is standard procedure. I maintain an online reference database of U.S. 1st-3rd issue revenue plate varieties, and I work with several experienced platers and variety experts. Before I submit anything to Amos Media for inclusion in the U.S. Specialized Catalogue, I make sure that it is an established/confirmed variety.

Wishing it is something doesn't make it so.

At long last, I have found similar stamps! Now what?

SINGLE


3 STAMPS VERTICAL:

Yes, I see 40 cents in postage.

WHAT should we be seeing here???? Your last post fails to communicate anything.