Based solely upon the images, I am thinking they might be offset printing (#528B). I base this upon the color and the general look of the stamps; #500 are more of a rose color while #528B is a carmine. Here is a #500 (on left) compared to a #528B (on right)
Note I am certainly not 100% sure, your images look a bit strange on my monitor. Did you use any imaging filters when you saved them? Can you post images of the stamp backs?
Don
Also, the lines on engraved stamps are much sharper than on offset.
First, thank everyone for your comments and suggestions. I guess I am trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The original pics were taken with my microscope and edited with IrfanView to make them fit the size requirement. I have no idea how to use an image filter as suggested. (My next learning experience). I agree that flat plate stamps should show some setoff, however my certified 500 has no offset and the back of the stamps in question do not appear to have any offset.
I have bad finger ridges so I used the foil method against my 500 and the 3 stamps in question. Had ridges in my 500, but nothing in the 3 in question. So, based on that and the color difference, I have ruled out being a 500. My next dilemma is the single line in the ribbon curves. My 3 examples only have the one line in the ribbon folds. No where can I find any mention of single line in ribbon other than the Type I, Ia and II. Based on that I assumed that all the remaining types had 2 lines in the ribbon folds. I know that 2 shading lines in the ribbon is a distinguishing feature of the Type III, but no where can I find any mention of single line in ribbon other than the Type I, Ia and II. Based on that I assumed that all the remaining types had 2 lines in the ribbon folds. If that is false thinking then that leaves my 3 stamps either a Type V, Va, VI, or VII. One last question. Is there some place that talks about the shading lines in the ribbons for the Type V, Va, VI, or VII?
Following is scanned pics of the 3 stamps.
Based on all the great help will save my money and not send for a cert.
Best wishes and have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Mel
I just checked my album and noticed I have a copy of this stamp. I remember 20 - 30 years ago my wife and I struggled with many of these early Washington stamps - different types, perfs, watermarks, color shades, etc. It sometimes took an hour or more to convince ourselves what the proper # for a stamp was and sometimes it got entered with a # followed by "?". We must have been sure of this one though and a cursory look seems to back up what it is. I never question what we came up with - maybe that's bad. We got out of stamps for about 10 years when we bought a home and "expenses" rose. Then we alternated in and out of the hobby several times. When she died 5 years ago I got back in with a vengeance, but refuse to double check what we worked so hard at! My problem is the price, I don't remember paying much more than $50 for stamps back then except for a few cases. Has this stamp really soared in value lately or did we just buy it as an unknown and figure it out?
Before I spend a lot of money to have 3 stamps expertized, I would like to gather some opinions from the more advanced SOR members. First, I have an APEX certified #500 used to compare. Other than slight color differences the pictured stamps look the same. They are all perf 11 X 11 (11-72 on the Specialist gauge). They are verified flat plate. I have consulted The Experts Book by Paul Schmid, and other W/F sources as well as The Stamp Smarter web cite. Not shown in the pictures is the upper right laurel berry, but all three have a large single dot.
#1
#2
#3
Any and all opinions are welcome and appreciated.
re: U.S. Stamp Scott #500
Based solely upon the images, I am thinking they might be offset printing (#528B). I base this upon the color and the general look of the stamps; #500 are more of a rose color while #528B is a carmine. Here is a #500 (on left) compared to a #528B (on right)
Note I am certainly not 100% sure, your images look a bit strange on my monitor. Did you use any imaging filters when you saved them? Can you post images of the stamp backs?
Don
re: U.S. Stamp Scott #500
Also, the lines on engraved stamps are much sharper than on offset.
re: U.S. Stamp Scott #500
First, thank everyone for your comments and suggestions. I guess I am trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The original pics were taken with my microscope and edited with IrfanView to make them fit the size requirement. I have no idea how to use an image filter as suggested. (My next learning experience). I agree that flat plate stamps should show some setoff, however my certified 500 has no offset and the back of the stamps in question do not appear to have any offset.
I have bad finger ridges so I used the foil method against my 500 and the 3 stamps in question. Had ridges in my 500, but nothing in the 3 in question. So, based on that and the color difference, I have ruled out being a 500. My next dilemma is the single line in the ribbon curves. My 3 examples only have the one line in the ribbon folds. No where can I find any mention of single line in ribbon other than the Type I, Ia and II. Based on that I assumed that all the remaining types had 2 lines in the ribbon folds. I know that 2 shading lines in the ribbon is a distinguishing feature of the Type III, but no where can I find any mention of single line in ribbon other than the Type I, Ia and II. Based on that I assumed that all the remaining types had 2 lines in the ribbon folds. If that is false thinking then that leaves my 3 stamps either a Type V, Va, VI, or VII. One last question. Is there some place that talks about the shading lines in the ribbons for the Type V, Va, VI, or VII?
Following is scanned pics of the 3 stamps.
Based on all the great help will save my money and not send for a cert.
Best wishes and have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Mel
re: U.S. Stamp Scott #500
I just checked my album and noticed I have a copy of this stamp. I remember 20 - 30 years ago my wife and I struggled with many of these early Washington stamps - different types, perfs, watermarks, color shades, etc. It sometimes took an hour or more to convince ourselves what the proper # for a stamp was and sometimes it got entered with a # followed by "?". We must have been sure of this one though and a cursory look seems to back up what it is. I never question what we came up with - maybe that's bad. We got out of stamps for about 10 years when we bought a home and "expenses" rose. Then we alternated in and out of the hobby several times. When she died 5 years ago I got back in with a vengeance, but refuse to double check what we worked so hard at! My problem is the price, I don't remember paying much more than $50 for stamps back then except for a few cases. Has this stamp really soared in value lately or did we just buy it as an unknown and figure it out?