Do You Think This Is US Scott 64 - Compared To Certified 64B And 65?

Do you think the stamp on the left is US Scott #64? The stamp in the middle is #64b per the PF cert I have ("rose pink, slightly oxidized"), while the stamp on the right is #65. I purchased what I think is #64 without a certificate, and I plan send it away for one, but I would be interested in perspectives.

Thanks!

I believe you have it right, but wonder if it is worth the trouble/cost to get it certified?

Greetings Capthickery,
personally I don't think it is"pink" enough to be 64. An old guy I worked with, many years ago, would comment on a scenario or a situation at hand, "it's a possibility; not a probability". I think that applies here. Check the PF database on certified 64's and then decide if you want to spend money on the cert..If you got it off "the bay" as some of the wittier posters would write; then I would almost guarantee it is not what you hope for.
sorry, cheers.
mark

I agree with GMC89

I also agree with GMC89.

#65 comes in a wide range of shades, so it can include rose shades. The blue cancel will throw off the eye (so cover that up), but looking at the denser parts around the head of the #64b, I can see a very slight blue tinge. This is not present on your stamp in my opinion, which I would say is rose.

A #64 has an even stronger blue tinge and is a wildly garish color.

Thanks for the feedback. Just as an FYI, I bought the stamp from a HipStamp seller.

March 23 cancel, which means 1862 at the earliest, which is getting fairly late also.

Not even close to being a 64. Once you see the pink you will realize how pink a 64 is. There is no mistaking it.

A 64 with the bluish cast. It is a very "soft" but vibrant color:

There are sellers on Hipstamp which often list on ebay as well, the same item at that. More than once I've purchased a stamp on HipStamp, then to see it listed on ebay afterwards, still. I once wrote to an ebay seller, asking if they wanted my stamp back, in order to sell it again.

I have this one, but it's not the "cookie"...

I believe that once one is seen with one's own eyes, staring back at them, there should be no doubt, no question. In that questions have been raised in this instance, there you are.

Then, the certifications come with a caveat: "We are of the opinion that...".

I had my doubts on the stamp being a #64, which is why I posted it. It has a different hue from #64b, so I tried to convince myself that it was pink. I have an outstanding credit at the PF so I'll get an opinion on it for a future collector. In the meantime, I'll be in the market for a bright pink #64.

Thanks all!

I got to looking on HipStamp, and I'm seeing a few certified as #64, #64a, and #64b. That's three numbers on the philatelic roulette-wheel. My own up there is possibly a #64b; and with the faintest of hopes, a mere whisp, a #64a? "I don't want to think about #65", I tell myself, then to run away. I haven't tried to remove the remaining gum, yet, as that might make it unfaithful. If you might land on the number there in the center, #64a, would that be a consolation?

Just imagine a letter bearing a #64, travelling along its route; that iconic "peacock", most easily spotted from right in front of one, their eyes lit up, but also from a few yards away. Who was standing there, at a distance?

As an aside, pink is of red. The rubies of Mogok in Burma have been said to exhibit the purest red in nature; yet with a hint of blue. The reason being is that said rubies, mined near rivers, in the rivers, descend from the Kashmir-blue sapphires of the Himalayas; that principal, and exhibiting no red whatsoever.

A short follow-up to my original posting. I've received the PF certificate, and the opinion is the stamp is US Scott 64b. My consolation is that it is a nice copy!

Good to see the results. Congratulations! This is better news than this being a #65.

Bravo!
great to see members "following up"
As an Australian member, may we ask (roughly) the cost of the cert
and the time lapse please?