Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
and three Scott numbers:
Scott 163
Image A81
Color Blue
Scott 169
Image A81 with "Paz 1904" overprint
Color Dark Blue
Scott 170
Image A85
Color Dark Blue
I have looked and looked, and I cannot find the difference between images A81 and A85. There may be some difference in the clouds, or a subtle difference in the lettering above the cow, or in the presence/absence of an accent mark over the "E" in CENTESIMOS. But I cannot be sure. Looking at a small image in the catalog with a magnifying glass is not ideal.
So the cow on the right has to be Scott 169, right? But why is the printed image a different size?
The entry for Scott 170 says "Unwatermarked," but so does the previous watermark status in the 2013 catalog I am using (Scott 55 says "Unwatermarked," and there are no watermark indications between them). But then I don't see any explicit references to specific watermarks either, until the listing for Scott 177. Maybe there is a blanket rule that says something like "all stamps watermarked with #90 unless otherwise stated." But I didn't see that. And that would violate the standard Scott notation pattern, right?
Continuing the thinking of the standard Scott notation, Scott 163 is listed as "Lithographed," as is Scott 170. The entry for Scott 169 does not say "Engraved" or anything else for that matter. So if there is no change, between 163 and 169 and 170, they why would they list "Lithographed" for 170?
The most likely explanation is that I have overlooked something. But I would appreciate any help in figuring out which cow I have on the left, and why the cow on the right is smaller.
-Steve
(Modified by Moderator on 2015-07-03 06:12:55)
Login to Like
this post
Per Scott at the end of each set listing:
A81 - the design measures 17mm by 23mm
A85 - the design measures 19 1/4mm by 25 1/2mm
The stamp on the left of your image is Scott 170, and the other is Scott 169.
Login to Like
this post
Michael, that's what I would have guessed, but where are those dimensions listed?
I have the 2013 Scott Catalog, the 2008 Scott Classic Specialized Catalog, and the 1959 Scott Combined Catalog. I find the same thing in all three: the first size listing of any kind is for Scott 267 (A100) where it says "Size: 18 x 22 1/2 mm."
From that point onward, there are a fair number of sizes listed, and a lot of the entries have the perfs listed, but nothing on size before Scott 267, and nothing to indicate what the difference in image is.
To compound the problem, my Scott International album as spaces for 163 and 170, but not 169, and the spaces for the two stamps are the same size. There are illustrations in both locations, which by Scott convention would normally indicate a different image. 
I could go dig my 1972 catalogs out of the basement, but I'm guessing they would say the same thing!
Is there something basic that I'm just missing?
Thanks,
Steve
Login to Like
this post
Two stamps:
and three Scott numbers:
Scott 163
Image A81
Color Blue
Scott 169
Image A81 with "Paz 1904" overprint
Color Dark Blue
Scott 170
Image A85
Color Dark Blue
I have looked and looked, and I cannot find the difference between images A81 and A85. There may be some difference in the clouds, or a subtle difference in the lettering above the cow, or in the presence/absence of an accent mark over the "E" in CENTESIMOS. But I cannot be sure. Looking at a small image in the catalog with a magnifying glass is not ideal.
So the cow on the right has to be Scott 169, right? But why is the printed image a different size?
The entry for Scott 170 says "Unwatermarked," but so does the previous watermark status in the 2013 catalog I am using (Scott 55 says "Unwatermarked," and there are no watermark indications between them). But then I don't see any explicit references to specific watermarks either, until the listing for Scott 177. Maybe there is a blanket rule that says something like "all stamps watermarked with #90 unless otherwise stated." But I didn't see that. And that would violate the standard Scott notation pattern, right?
Continuing the thinking of the standard Scott notation, Scott 163 is listed as "Lithographed," as is Scott 170. The entry for Scott 169 does not say "Engraved" or anything else for that matter. So if there is no change, between 163 and 169 and 170, they why would they list "Lithographed" for 170?
The most likely explanation is that I have overlooked something. But I would appreciate any help in figuring out which cow I have on the left, and why the cow on the right is smaller.
-Steve
(Modified by Moderator on 2015-07-03 06:12:55)
Login to Like
this post
11:07:58pm
re: Blue Cows from Uruguay
Per Scott at the end of each set listing:
A81 - the design measures 17mm by 23mm
A85 - the design measures 19 1/4mm by 25 1/2mm
The stamp on the left of your image is Scott 170, and the other is Scott 169.
Login to Like
this post
re: Blue Cows from Uruguay
Michael, that's what I would have guessed, but where are those dimensions listed?
I have the 2013 Scott Catalog, the 2008 Scott Classic Specialized Catalog, and the 1959 Scott Combined Catalog. I find the same thing in all three: the first size listing of any kind is for Scott 267 (A100) where it says "Size: 18 x 22 1/2 mm."
From that point onward, there are a fair number of sizes listed, and a lot of the entries have the perfs listed, but nothing on size before Scott 267, and nothing to indicate what the difference in image is.
To compound the problem, my Scott International album as spaces for 163 and 170, but not 169, and the spaces for the two stamps are the same size. There are illustrations in both locations, which by Scott convention would normally indicate a different image.
I could go dig my 1972 catalogs out of the basement, but I'm guessing they would say the same thing!
Is there something basic that I'm just missing?
Thanks,
Steve
Login to Like
this post