Farley 733/753 Bryd And 727/752 Newburgh Identification

This topic has been discussed a few times, but I thought I would start a new topic instead of replying to a dormant 10 year old thread, for example https://goscf.com/t/39546

Is there any way to identify whether a no-gum or a used Byrd or Newburgh single stamp is the original or the special printing? And if not, then why are some of the ungummed special printing examples priced higher in Scott than the gummed originals (not counting pairs/blocks with gutters or guidelines)?

This is a followup to a conversation in "Show Us Your Completed Album Pages!" where John Becker ponders,


Durland has a similar pricing difference, with no indication how to correctly identify the nearly 10x more expensive 752 (other than being without gum).

The Byrd plate block 733 gummed is $12, and 753 ungummed is $15.

Does anyone know if the PF/PSE can scientifically examine the stamp and accurately identify a genuine ungummed special printing versus an original that has had the gum soaked off?


In the PSE database, I find 4 certificates for 733 that are, "genuine unused, no gum" and a plate block of 733 that "is a genuine unused, no gum, top margin Plate No. 21170 block of six, the selvage with a natural paper wrinkle not affecting the stamps."

Because they certified some NG 733s, this might imply they have a way to determine a washed 733 from the NGAI special printing.

I also found 5 used singles certified as genuine 733 (that had mute oval or other non-CDS cancels). Did they find DNA from the original gum in order to prove they were 733?

The PSE database also has 5 unused NGAI and 2 certified used copies of 753. How did they know these are 753 and not 733?

Now the plot thickens. PSE cert 1369926 for 753 is a "VF 80 Mint OGnh "it is genuine unused, o.g., never hinged."

This cannot happen. All references that I have found say that only the imperf Parks 756-765 and souvenir sheets 769-770 were accepted for gumming.

Sloan's Column 12/21/40 said the Bureau will only gum full sheets of the National Parks imperforates and souvenir sheets, but not the Century of Progress souvenir sheets, and "they are not, of course, gumming the perforated Newburgh or Byrd stamps". Sloane followed up 1/25/1941 "It should be again emphasized that the particular varieties which are being gummed for collectors and others are restricted to entire sheets of 200 of the imperforate National Parks stamps, and entire sheets of 120 of the two National Parks souvenir panes. No other varieties than these should be sent in."

So how does a 753 Byrd special printing wind up with Original Gum? Is it possible someone snuck a perforated Byrd sheet in the middle of a stack of imperforate Parks sheets and got it gummed? I found no gummed 753 position pieces in the PSE database, they are all NGAI.

For Newburgh, in the PSE database there are about 10 certified used copies of 727 and 1 certified used copy of 752 (none with CDS postmarks). How did they tell which is which? For completeness, there are a couple of certified gummed gutter pairs of #727, which are mentioned (but not listed or priced) in Scott. Scott says they were not issued this way and not to be confused with the Special Printing. Maybe these were printers waste or foldover errors, or maybe from the original contraband that got Farley in trouble in the first place.

Anyway, the PF database has 1 genuine used 733 (without CDS) and one used submitted as 753, "it is genuine, but decline opinion with respect to whether this is a Farley special printing." (508468)
Again I wonder if the PF equipment can find traces of OG on the used copy certified as 733, or if it was just an opinion "most used copies in existence are 733 so that's probably what this one is."

PF also has a certified 752 Newburgh plate block (cert 465050). Maybe due to dust on the perf tips it is possible to tell that the paper has never been dipped in water (i.e. gum soaked off a #727), and maybe the $27.50 CV is to justify the cost of the certificate that is needed to prove its identity. Just a theory. Albeit, a bad theory because the same pattern does not follow with the Byrd 753.

Any other thoughts?

This is not 10 years old and quite comprehensive as well: https://goscf.com/t/54752&whichpage=1

ZebraMan your observations have merit and highlight some interesting issues.

Based on writings from Johl Vol. 4, Sloat's "Farley's Follies", Scotts Catalogue and Sloan's columns there is no way to differentiate a single no-gum or used Newburgh/Byrd stamp as either the regular issue (727/733) or the special printing (752/753). And, since there is no historical record nor known examples of gummed perforated special printings of the Newburgh/Byrd stamps, the likelihood of a genuine gummed example is EXTREMELY small. It remains that the only way to tell the difference is with pairs/blocks showing the gutter/line between the stamps.

John Becker's comments regarding the pricing of Newburgh/Byrd stamps is right on the money. It highlights a discontinuity in pricing that could be addressed by bringing it to the publisher of Scott's catalogue. I'm not sure how receptive they would be to make changes.

The issue of certification is a bit trickier since each organization relies on a group of experts to evaluate each candidate stamp. From your example, I would say the only accurate evaluation was the opinion, "It is genuine, but decline opinion with respect to whether this is a Farley special printing" (508468).

This calls into question the accuracy of some of the certifications. What a can of worms this opens?

But to be honest, there is no logical way a knowledgeable judge could differentiate a single used copy of 727/752 or 733/753. In either case, they could only grade the stamp for its centering and defer on the Scott number.

As to your question, "Does anyone know if the PF/PSE can scientifically examine the stamp and accurately identify a genuine ungummed special printing versus an original that has had the gum soaked off?" I think that only someone from those organizations could answer that question.

Do we have anyone on the forum that is knowledgeable of PSE & PF's testing capabilities?

Great job on bringing up some interesting and thought provoking observations.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive."
Sir Walter Scott (no pun intended, but then.......)

DON'T MAKE ME OPEN THIS !

It's not so much of a can of worms, but rather if one is going to collect Farley's special printings, then one has to do some study and realize that some of the configurations (particularly of singles and small pieces), may not be beyond-doubt identifiable to a specific catalog number. When in doubt, the item would have to be assumed to be the more common item.

I have no problem with that. I think the can of worms is the inconsistency with the catalog listings (prices) and certifications. I agree with rturn22 that the only accurate listing out of all the certifications that I found was the PF 508468 "It is genuine, but decline opinion with respect to whether this is a Farley special printing".

If there is truly no identifiable difference for certain formats, the catalogs should say so, and be priced accordingly, in my opinion.



For the sake of argument, how does one determine the more common item? Catalog price? Take the used Byrd single. The original 733 is 50 cents used, the Special Printing 753 is 45 cents used. Does this mean the Special Printing postally used is more common than the original? I find that hard to believe. The pricing structure in Scott for some of these items does not make sense to me.
Another example is the Byrd pair with horizontal line $2 and pair with vertical line $32.50. Ok so I understand that there are more horizontal line pairs than vertical, but why does that 15x price multiple not apply to any of the other Farley horiz/vert line pairs, just Byrd?

More common = the non special printing = the version released everywhere. Common sense should prevail.