Is This A 182 Or Possible Reperfed 156-P4?

I've been looking at this thing trying to figure it out.
The design appears proof-like, so I guessed it to be a 156-P4 that was cut to look like a standard issue.





The gum on back is much heavier in some areas and wraps around to the left/right front side perfs, so I think it's been regummed. This would further validate the possibility of a forgery. The brush strokes are also short and haphazardly applied when they should only go in one direction:




I thought I had it pegged until realized it was on soft paper. The 156 proofs were made before the American takeover, so I'm at a loss. The perfs and paper gradation also match up nicely with other 182's:





I've heard about proofs being issued on stamp paper before. So could that be the case here?
Thank you

Looks like a regummed 156 to me. It is not a doctored proof.

I thought that as well. Typical hard paper shows cleaner inking, but this one goes beyond even my unused 156 hard p. types in terms of detail despite it being on soft paper.

I don't have any proof papers to compare it with so I was wondering if any bore resemblance to that of soft paper.

I'm glad you say it is regummed though! I don't have any experience with that either aside from knowing it exists, so I just applied what I do know about the gumming process and came to that conclusion.

Getting stronger

The gum-soaked perfs at left and right means it needs more examination. Gum soaked perfs can happen with OG, too, if it's been near water - at best you would end up with disturbed OG. This, however, looks like a regum. The gum just doesn't look right.

As to it being a proof, or not, I will leave that to others with more knowledge.

A proof would be on either card stock (P4, cardboard to Scott) or India paper (P3, can be mounted on card stock as well) neither of which is the case here. Sometimes proofs are also shaved to be made thinner but there is no reason to put so much effort into creating a stamp with such poor centering.

A 156 that has been played with.

It's a soft paper stamp, so an ABNCo #182.

I thought it might be an intermediate paper 156; the impression and color don't seem like the 182. Also the secret mark is fairly strong, although that does not rule out a 182.

Look at how sharp the portrait and background are. Also look how much of the design shows from the reverse.

I went with 156 for the exact reasons Revcollector outlines above.

That's a great to know mootermutt! I believe I have a 156 just like you say here. I'll compare it with this piece...



Man, I really needed that confirmation. MASSIVE help Rogdcam, thank you!



Thanks for the idea Bart! I'll pull one of those out as well (one that I mentioned here before) and provide comparisons!

The paper is much too thick to be intermediate paper. Try to ignore the badly yellowed paper of the stamp to the left. The paper is substantially the same thickness and opacity.

I picked out a similar looking stamp that I can guarantee is a #182. If I was so inclined, I am sure I can find and even closer match. Here it is...

That's a nice stamp, Sinclair! There's something great about postmarked stamps that look post office fresh.
As per the first one, I think they're more or less referring to it's impression in saying it's a 156 rather than color or paper thickness.
Those are perfectly fine assumptions, as it's next to impossible to judge certain paper types from pictures alone.

I've dug up two more mint examples, one with disturbed gum as mootermutt mentioned and another on (what I believe to be) intermediate paper kudos to revcollector:




In direct light, the discrepancies in surface texture and opaquness increase accordingly as shown here:
(bottom L- disturbed OG, bottom R, intermediate, top- perceived soft paper)



Adding two more soft papers to picture #2 in this post show how only the silhouette can be seen from the back while not in direct light. They become foggy, whereas the hard paper design tends to 'fade out' depending on the thickness:



The mesh pattern of soft paper is more rectangular and prominent than the staticky dots seen on intermediate:
(Left- soft, Mid- intermediate, Right- perceived soft)

I'll get back online later, but thanks again for all the help!