Crimson Auction Scott 278 Marshall

Sorry, I could not get the image to properly upload. In the Crimson Auction, lot 374 Scott #278, has a green line on the left side of the stamp. This line also shows in the two certificates. My U.S. Specialized catalog does not show a line in the left margins. Can someone tell me what the line is and is it an extraneous mark (nothing about it in the certificates) or what? Thanks.

Stephen, do a search on this forum and enter "red line" or "rare red line" and see if that looks like what you have ( but I a different color).


Peter

#278 was printed in a sheet of two panes of 100 stamps each as shown here

More info
https://stampsmarter.org/learning/I...reLines.html

The red line (guideline) above is where the sheet was cut into two panes.
Don

For clarity, the guidelines are printed in the same main color as the stamp. The example shows red, but yours would be green if it was a guideline. (See below)

[It is circumstances sure as this which is why this guy exists>>> ]

Nevermind, ignore the posts above. Here is the image of the stamp in question.

Appears to be a plate scratch?

Don

I saw this as well in looking at that lot. The only thing I could think of was a slight slip up somewhere in the engraving or printing process. The certifiers surely saw it but they did not note it.

French's Encyclopedia of Plate Varieties on U.S. Bureau-Printed Postage Stamps has no entries for Scott 278, or 277 for that matter.

I looks like a plate scratch, but even as a diagonal line, that does not preclude a layout line used by the sideographer. Layout lines were to be buffed out when the plate was polished.

So if you win this wonderful looking item, you will be receiving a 278 with plate variety.

Me, if I win, I would send copies of both certs and a close up of the stamp to Scott to see if they would list it as a plate variety. They do do that for some issues.

I found another example with the same scratch. Siegel Sale 1140, Lot 673. Used pair with scratch on right stamp.

https://siegelauctions.com/lot_grd....mitNext=Next

Thanks to all of you for the information. I'll have to practice getting images to post. Thought I was following the instructions, but obviously missed at least one step.

Rogdcam, found three more: two in 2013 Siegel Auctions and one in 2006 Auction. Didn't look further back.
Learned something new today. Thanks

That is awesome Stephen. Best of luck if you bid on anything.

From Siegel Auctions, Sale 1140, lot 673



To the OP you now can plate the location of the plate variety.

Life is so much easier when only one plate is used to print a design.

Great find ParcelPost of the position showing damage to the plate. Must be damage as it persists and is consistent across several printings.

Below is my 278 which is in the same position, but before that damage occurred.

Very interesting -- thank you Stephen for drawing attention to this mark.

Same plate, 85, was used for the previous year's unwatermarked #263.

No. The two #85 singles are not the same.
One is from the top of the left pane and one from the right pane.
Note the 8 and 5 are punched at different heights to one another - and the distance between the digits is not the same either.

Jleb1979, very interesting. Maybe not the same pane, but yours has a small scratch (?) in the second "L" of dollar. Is that another known variety?


Peter

Thanks for correcting me John, I now see that & agree.
I was so focussed on the shape of the 5 I didn't observe the relative positioning.

Wonder if we can determine which is left and which is right pane.

The National Postal Museum has a certified plate proof but it is plate 288 which is from the later special printing and not the production runs of 278. https://postalmuseum.si.edu/object/...0.242263.280 for those curious.
Wonder if they have a plate proof of 278 in a vault. They also show the bottom of a partial sheet and a bottom plate block, but not the top....

- Jonathan

Edited to fix link