Design R22 - Documentary Stamp

My Specialized Catalogue notes that there are two types of Design R22 - Type I with dots in the centers of the periods before and after "CENTS" and Type II without such dots. What I can't figure out is which stamps are Type I and which are Type II. For example, I have a very nice 1 cent stamp that does not have the dots that is Perf. 11. Is it an R228 (which is carmine rose) or R 261 (rose pink)? The colors are very close according to my color key. My first impression is that it is an R228, but, if so, is there an R228 Type II, and, if so, shouldn't my Specialized differentiate between Type Is and Type IIs? Thanks for any insights someone may provide.

Alan

R228 is a one cent perf 11. R261 is a 5 cent perf 11x10. I don't see why you would have a problem.

R251 is perf 10.

Revcollector, sorry, slip of the finger. R264, not R261. R264 is 1 cent. Both R228 and R264 are Per 11, both offset printing, both Watermark 191R, both design R22. But my real question is stamps of Design R22 can be either Type I or Type II, but there doesn't seem to be any indication in the Scott numbering that would identify a stamp as either Type I or Type II. For example, if Stamp R228 can be either Type I or Type II, I would expect there to be a R2328a or R228b. Am I missing something here?

Thanks

Scott R264 is overprinted "Series 1940"

No, Scott does not differentiate dots and no-dots with a separate suffix.

John,

Thank you for your answer. Once again, I'm surprised (if that's the word) by the vagaries of the Scott numbering system. Scott 250 is a Type I, but because Type II has thinner lines that cross the triangle, that stamp is a Scott 251. But no differentiation on Scott R228 Type I from Type II. I suppose that's why this hobby is so difficult to get my arms around it.
Thanks also for pointing out the "Overprinting" on R264. I gotta learn to notice the fine print.

Alan

I have long contended that the Scott "Specialized" should be viewed as the Scott "Semi-Specialized". It does not have every last detail about every stamp. Thus the need for the next level of journals and monographs by the various societies such as the American Revenue Association and the State Revenue Society. The same observation is particularly true for the level of detail in the postal stationery listings.

The 1917 documentary cents values (Scott R228 - 239) actually exist in three types! The Scott identified type 2 was chronologically the first that was offset printed from lithographic plates in Buffalo, under the supervision of employees of the Bureau of Engraving & Printing. When Congress objected, new lithographic plates of the same design were produced in the BEP in Washington with the addition of dots. These were assigned type I in the head note I the
Scott Catalogue. Does that remind you of the secret marks of the Bank note postage issues that were assigned major numbers in the front of the Scott Specialized Catalogue? But in the revenue section the secret marks are simply mentioned in a head note!

In 1924, the BEP pioneered high etch plates (described in the philatelic literature by the late George Brett) which were used on the offset plates. These often appear with splash inward in the denomination that has been confused with a double impression. Regardless the outward edge is not the crisp line on the offset printings from lithographic plates. This should be type 3.

Not all 1917 documentary stamps are known with all three types!

To assist, take a look at the Silver Tax listings (RG1 - 12). All cents denominations, except the 25¢ denomination, are offset printings from high etch plates. These are what I am calling type 3. Look especially at the 50¢ denomination. All examples that I have seen have what George Brett described as splash and have often been confused as double impressions. The 25¢ denomination is overprinted on the so-called type I with dots and were printed from offset lithographic plates.

A number of collectors and I are working to revise this whole section.

Thanks, Ron. I remembered reading this before, but I did not remember the exact details.