1st Issue Silk Papers In Scott Questions

Also, I'm still wondering about my first question above if it's okay:

1) If it is not listed in Scott, does that just mean no known copies have been found, or is there evidence to suggest that silk paper 100% does not exist for the issuance?

Thank you, I appreciate that sentiment. Always good to hear that people find the information useful.

Now if only I had more time to work on my collection and the site... sigh. I think I'm now up to 6 bankers box cartons full of acquisitions over the last 10 years waiting imaging and writeup. At this rate I'll get caught up roughly 15 years after my death.

The original idea of having all the different labels for first issue stamp came from the thought that each would only be valid for their specific taxes. It very quickly became apparent that this was impractical, and the government soon passed a rule that said that all types were good for any taxes, except that Proprietary stamps and Playing cards stamp should only be used on proprietary articles. Everything else was valid for any documentary tax use. Once they did that, Butler & Carpenter (later Joseph Carpenter) began printing up stamps using only a few labels per value. So stamps like the 2 cent Bank Check and USIR got printed in huge quantities, while stamps such as the 2 cent Certificate were not. It was just convenience on their part. And they were getting paper from at least 3 or 4 different companies, so any silk paper just wound up being used where ever it was, with no specific thought to it. So at this point, none have been found, and even in 1898 they had no knowledge of any, so the likelihood at this point is extremely small. I won't say never, because there have been new items found after 150 years in the recent past, such as the part sheet of 140 of the imperforate RO140i. But it is highly unlikely at this point.

6 boxes??! Oh man... If I were you I would forget about the site for a while and enjoy what you have! Your site is plenty useful as is, and it's no rush.
You could even go through them for the purpose of your own collection and just make separate quick notes of what you'd want to see up in the site eventually. Definitely prioritize your happiness and enjoyment first! You've done a lot for us, the community.

Thank you for clearing that up, Revcollector! That makes total sense. I like to make those kinds of caluclations in my head while I'm examining a stamp, whether it is "very unlikely" or just downright impossible. It's exciting for me to think about the possibility of making a new discovery like the two you mentioned, but it also means I won't set my expectations too high if I submit something that is "very unlikely". You and revenue collector are both Great Teachers!

Solomons,
I've been watching this thead develop over the past week and the lesson seems to boil down to:
Proper identification will take into account ALL features of a stamp: the basic ID, the shade, the cancel date, the paper (both macro and micro level features), production standards of the times, other features present/absent, etc. A few flecks of contamination won't make it silk paper without the other confirming features.

Not only is that correct, we are talking about 1860's paper, which tends to be on the dirty side anyway. Unpulped threads and inclusions are not uncommon.

You both are absolutely correct. I will keep my eyes open for all the attributes that silk papers possess, not only the little blue threads.

I enjoy searching for the "unseen" or the "very unlikely", but I do not want to fool myself into thinking I do have something.

Proverbs 12:1 "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is a fool"

Hey Revenuecollector! If you're still following this thread, please check out Photo61guy's images here:
https://goscf.com/t/89172#826060

I remember seeing a thread where you experimenting with different cameras and scans, so hopefully this might be useful to you.