Andrew Jackson 2c Identification

Hi all

Let us try this again...I came across this Andrew Jackson 2c stamp in my great grand father's collection, the stamp seems to be on hard white paper, I cannot see any signs of a grill having been on the stamp from front or back. The stamp feels like rag paper, it has a textile like feel and the stamp is incredibly durable, there was some kind of hard gum substance stuck to the front all over Andrew Jackson's face(There are still some remnants of the substance) which I tried to clean off so unfortunately there is no gum left on the stamp. Any idea of what variant this is and how to value it as some of the perfs are cut and it has no gum?

In the other thread you complain you are not getting help because no one will confirm your 5 ct stamp is a genuine "blue" paper. You get beliggerant and want the thread and account deleted.

Now, you post this. What do you want to achieve?




How would a used stamp as evidenced by the cancellation have anything but 'no gum?'

Is that left bottom corner added to the stamp?

In all honesty I am just trying to get through all the stamps from my grandfather's collection. Hoping that perhaps someone can help me identify this stamp. I am thinking scott #73 but I am not sure, hopefully someone here can give me some guidance.

And to answer your question no "I do not add things" to paper when taking scans. I actually am taking stamp collecting very seriously. So to answer your question I am not trying to scam anyone

I did not suggest you added anything.

The lower left corner looks "odd." From the image, the engraving appears to lack continuity and there appears to be a vertical divide. This could indicate it has been (re-)attached.

Oh I'm really sorry, I though you meant I added something... no I am not sure I am even seeing what you see. Are you referring to the first image or the second image left bottom corner?

The one from the front. It, probably, is just the way it was engraved. It creates an opticsl illusion. The indents on the back do not coincide.

You did a very good cleaning job, removing all that residual gunk from the front of the stamp. Any glue on the back probably came from the same source as what caused it on the front, so removing from the back was also necessary.

I'm not an expert on this stamp, but I can add that it appears to have gone through a rough life, like many in my collection. Since top is trimmed poorly and the bottom also, the value, even if originally a very expensive variant, would be severely affected. I'd still keep it as a remembrance of Great Grandpa, but wouldn't be annoyed if I couldn't get more than a few dollars for it.

Wesley, you are correct that the stamp is ungrilled and that it is Scott #73. This is a common stamp in used condition, and with its defects is of little value. I would move on to other items in the collection and not spend any more time on this one.