2c Washington Is Leaving Me Stumped (Coil Waste?)

I recently came across this 2c Washington in a feeder album that has really stumped me--hopefully someone can help me identify it. Normally I don't have too much difficulty with parsing these issues out except for sometimes the watermarks, but this one is resisting my efforts.

I'll start by listing all its characteristics:

1. Perforated 11 horizontally
2. Rotary press (determined by comparing to a known flat plate)
3. Type I die
4. No discernible watermark

You may quickly start to see that something isn't adding up here... The stamp was placed in the spot for #411, but we know that is incorrect right off the bat since #411 is perf 8.5.

As far as I know, there weren't any coil stamps perforated 11, so my first thought was that somebody trimmed down a regular stamp to make a fake coil. But this doesn't work out since the only perf 11 2c Washington rotary press is #546, which is a Type III die. We run into the same issue even if someone trimmed down a coil waste #539 or #540, being Type II and III dies, respectively.

So, what am I missing here? I'm at a loss. The closest I could come to is that it's a trimmed down #540 and I am just misidentifying the die type--my mystery stamp fits all the other characteristics--but I really don't think that is the case.

I've tried to attach photographs of everything as best I can, including the comparison to a flat plate stamp, multiple perf measurements, and a magnified shot of the details to determine die type. Hopefully they show up well enough at the tiny size I have to upload them at on this site.


Front View


Back View


Comparison to flat plate


Closeup of the detail for die type


More closeup details


Upper perf measurements


Lower perf measurements


Additional perf measurements.

I see a few of my images aren't loading. Let me see if I can fix that.

Edit: fixed them.

Even with seeing only a few of the images, you are correct that your stamp is perf 11 and thus cannot be a legitimate coil, etc.

You will note the right side is *not* cut parallel to the design.

No doubt this is trimmed, and likely from a booklet stamp, which has a typically wider and shorter shorter image due to a 90-degree turning of the paper when printed, thus altering the grain direction. This is also evident by the red ink set-off on the reverse side indicating a flat plat printing, and not rotary. Unfortunately, Scott is mostly silent identifying sheet vs booklet singles.

Great catch with the ink on the back and the non-parallel cut, John! Thank you for the swift reply. I had pretty much forgotten about booklets, and this is most likely what I'm looking at here. It's funny to see what bored (or shady) collectors got up to back in the day.

It's funny to see what bored (or shady) collectors got up to back in the day.

It's quite possible the damage was accidental when the cover was opened or when the stamp was clipped from the envelope for soaking and that a later collector was merely fooled, rather than some nefarious intent. We just don't have any way to know.

Here is a vertical pair with perf. 11s, that someone faked, and were used to send a correspondence. I got this on ebay, knowing it was faked, to get it off the market before someone could unknowingly buy it thinking it was a good pair.

Do you want to show anything with your letter?
It is so low in quality there is nothing to see here....
a) Make a high resolution image
b) Crop away the unnecessary parts, only show the stamps...

drkohler, here's the pair

Much better!
If I had to guess, an imperforated pair that was "perforated" horizontally.