Please Help With My Tricky 3c Washington

I'm finding nailing down the final Scott #'s extremely difficult on my multiple Washingtons and Franklins. I have gone down so many rabbit holes I'm totally lost. Watermarks, perfs, jumbos, colours - it's sometimes so frustrating, but still so totally addictive.

This one is tricky as the upper perfs are hard to read (a big mess) . I have noticed a potential flaw in the top left corner. Am I hallucinating?

Any pointers gratefully received

Then use the lower perforations, if perforations are at all relevant.

If you think you are seeing something, identify it. Do not let us guess.

Other than that, the condition of your stamp is beyond "bad."

Have you looked here:

https://stampsmarter.org/features/H...eatures.html

This stamp is not part of what is known as the Washington-Franklin series, which was begun in the early 1900's. If you are operating under this assumption it is no wonder you have gone in circles. This is what is known as a Large Bank Note (series begun in 1870). For Large Bank Note stamps perforations and watermarks are irrelevant. In order to identify the Scott # you need to pay attention to color, paper type, grilling, and certain subtle design elements.

Are you writing about the flaw that I have marked?

If so, we would need a much better scan of this area. However, it looks like a scrape that either happened during cancellation, or sometimes later for this poorly traveled stamp. I wouldn't add any extra value ... in fact, deduct for this fault, as well as all of the other faults on this stamp.

Fallingforphil,

I'll try to help you out here.

To start with the stamp you have a stamp that is in the family of U.S. stamps known as the large bank notes and they are relatively easy to identify though a process of elimination. The stamp smarter site is an excellent source for information about the large bank notes. However it isn't the only source. If you are anything like me and many others. I like to have on hand references to make doubly sure the stamp I am trying to identify is what it is especially when the internet goes down.

Now lets narrow down your 5 possibilities. Since you're asking for a Scott catalog # that makes it really simple. Your 5 possibilities are: 136, 147,158,184 and 207.

There was a special printing that were issued with no gum 169 and 194 moreover It is extremely unlikely that your stamp is either of these two because there was only 267 total stamps printed with no gum. Most are mint. Very few were ever used because they had no gum. That isn't to say that they don't exist.



It isn't a 136 because it has no grill.

It isn't a 147 because it has the secret mark which is a heavy shadow under the scroll on the left beneath the word three. It also has the wide frame shadow width on the right side of the portrait of Washington.

So that automatically eliminates 207 as a possibility because it has a narrow frame shadow width and a different secret mark that is a dash below the letters T and S. Because your stamp doesn't have these traits or evidence of re-design.

So that has narrowed it down to 2 possibilities 158 or 184. The difference between the 2 is paper. 158 has hard white paper and 184 has soft porous paper. Since I don't have your stamp in my hands I won't say that it is one ore the other.

Plate flaws such as the one you're asking about are quite common with stamps that are over 150 years old. The quality assurance and quality control wasn't what is today. So it is hard to say that the flaw you're asking about is an error or just a freak or an oddity. Unless you find another one with the exact same flaw or flaws, It really a nothing sauce. Either cat# are of any real value especially for a used stamp in the condition yours is in.

I hope this helps. Maybe someone else will chime in with a paper type and you'll have your answer.

Jeremy

Without doubt, soft paper. See region of right side perfs.

#184

Thanks very much everyone for your feedback.

The Stamp Smarter site is a revelation - I'd been switching between multiple sites to try and collate information.

And thanks very much Jeremy for walking me through the id process so patiently. I kept changing my mind about whether or not I could see the secret mark.

I did try for over an hour yesterday to upload a close up image of the "flaw" - don't know why but obviously I failed there. So, this morning I have decided to soak off the hinge - and who knows, maybe in the process, some of grotty "badness" may be ameliorated.

Because I flicked the stamp a few times before its bath. And to me it sounded pretty crisp and snappy.

Fallingforphil

It is a pleasure to help out when I can. I have a difficult time with the flick test as I have some significant hearing loss and terrible tinnitus. So to overcome that I use known examples of soft paper stamps to compare a stamp in question to. Such as Scott catalog # 205 or 210 which can be nothing else but soft paper.

The reference that I used to help walk you through the ID process can be purchased from the APL website as a member or non member. It is titled:

U.S. Large Banknotes Identification Guide
Strategies and Methods of Identification
authored by
Bob Pipes and Steve Einhorn

I find it to be very useful and easy to understand. There are other references that are very good too. Another one that is in my personal library is by Scott and is titled.

Identification Guide To U.S. Stamps
Regular Issues 1847 to 1934
by Charles N. Micarelli

Both are very good in my opinion. Where one lacks information the other makes up for. There are many other references out there you just have to find one that works for you.

Jeremy

Though your stamp is in poor shape, you can improve it. Give it a bath in (faucet)-hot water, remove the hinge, and gently rub it between your fingers - some of that dirt may come off. Then press it flat overnight. I can't tell if it has been postally used, but you will lose no value even if this is a "mint" stamp. It is always better to have a no-gum stamp than a stained one one with a disaster on the back.

I used a bit of a Milton sterilising tablet (used for sterilising children's feed bottles) on a badly-stained and torn US stamp. Worked a treat. The active ingredient is Troclosene Sodium, which slowly releases chlorine (according to Wikipedia).