Would Like Your Opinions On These Two Stamps

Scott 233 & 233a. Before I send the one out for certification, I would like to hear your opinions on these two stamps. I believe the first one to be a 233, the other to be a 233a. Thank you. Roy

Don't waste your money. Neither stamp is a Scott 233a. Try PF Search and Siegel Power Search to see examples of the correct shade.

Bill,

Does the block at the forefront appear likely? It seems different than the other specimens I have (several other blocks/strips as well.)

Just compare them to a one cent Columbian. If it is not about the same shade, then it's not the error.

This is what I have, in varying states of decomposition...

You can see the red within the ultramarine, making the blue base purplish.

No, that's not of my own, at right, of course.

To me, some of the normal ultramarines have a paper that has a slight pinkish cast.

Even if you have trouble with color differences, there is one easy way to eliminate most non-233a stamps. I was taught a long time ago to "look at the clouds". Note that the clouds in the 233a scan are much darker and much better defined than those in the normal shade.

Thank you for that tip Bill.

I would add that 'motivated perception' is often encountered in philately. 'Motivated perception' has been the subject of psychological research for many years. And it has been proven that humans are very likely to perceive what they want to see or hear. Add some imagination about how an ink color may have come about, post it in a public forum, and a new philatelic urban legend is born.

This is why it can be worthwhile to submit stamps to experts, they are a much more objective set of eyes than our own. Never 100% trust your own eyes (paraphrasing Obi-Wan Kenobi). And never, ever trust that images posted online have not been manipulated.
Don

Motivated reasoning is a cognitive bias which describes our tendency to accept what we want to believe more readily and with less scrutiny than that which we don't want to believe.

Let's have a sing-a-long...

Everybody wants a 4¢ blue, 4¢ blue, 4¢ blue,
Everybody wants a 4¢ blue, in singles and plate-blocks!

I have these as well. Their debut at the Post Office had passed me by, hence, I got mine from a seller, not too many years afterwards. I broke all of them up...


I can still see the red, the purple, within the ultramarine of the 4-cent. The blue of the 1-cent is a bit deep, blackish, and not unlike that of 1892. I think that the shade of the blue of the 4-cent error is somewhat lighter; a true, brighter blue.

The colours seem to be the same as those in 1892 within the re-prints, but they were somewhat stingy with the ink, in addition to a somewhat diminished saturation.

'motivated perception' - there isa black trees variety of the 25c Yosemite (2280e0. When I look at one, my mid sees dark green instead of black because it is expecting green.

The primaries...

...blue, red and yellow, and with blue as the boss, followed by red, then yellow, however that not being in an alphabetical order.

You can add all manner of things to those three, and make magic; secondaries...

and there are pure compounds that are green

If we head into mixing colors/inks we are going to have to get our nomenclature straight because 'shade' means adding black to an existing color. I think that the majority of folks here instead use the word 'shade' to simply mean any different color/hue. Painters, printers, and folks who are responsible for mixing/making the color mediums always use the term 'shade' to mean adding black to a color and 'tint' means adding white to a color. It might be best to steer clear of color theory/color science and mixing of colors so we can continue to use 'shade' the way the majority of folks here use it.
Don