Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I've got a "due" question!
I was looking through my older postage due stamps when i came across one that looked blank.
It seems really Under-inked!
Is this a variety?
I cannot find it listed in the Standard Scott Catalog anywhere!
I've seen extreme over inking on these stamps a lot, but never Under-Inking?
Is there a Scott Number for this?
Does this add additional value to this stamp?
I've included an image of a standard one next to it for reference.
Thanks!
-Ari
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Looks like environmental conditions (light?) caused it to fade.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I cannot find it listed in the Standard Scott Catalog anywhere!
Go back to the Scott Cat. and in the first few pages look up "postage due" and there should be a number of the page to look for.
Login to Like
this post
i'd go with Ernie and say it's fading due to light (although soaking in some fluids could also be the culprit)
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Can you determine the year of issue?
Could you scan the back of the stamp in question?
I might have a possible answer for you.
Login to Like
this post
This postage due stamp is design 2 issued in at least 7 printings from 1894-1925. Some are watermarked with both types as well as unwatermarked. The colors range from deep claret red to carmine. At any rate, these two stamps look to have been in the sun or some other treatment has washed them out. I hope that this helps.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Hello Everyone! Thanks for this great info.
When I mean I cannot find it anywhere, I mean I cannot find under-inking in the postage due section of the standard catalog for 2024.
It could be previous watermark fluid I guess.
Although, to the best of my knowledge when I bought these stamps were in a dark shoebox for 30+ years allegedly!
I checked on my T3 Signoscope LED, and it is watermark 191 (DL), so it has to be the deep claret issue of 95-97. This makes it #J38 (UNH)
Though, this stamp definitely does not look deep claret.
Maybe a faded Carmine?
I've included a scan of the back of the stamp, which looks like the front since it is so faded!
I really appreciate all of this help!
Thanks!
-Ari
moderator - tweaked formatting
(Modified by Moderator on 2024-12-27 05:52:59)
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
would describe the back to appear pink?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
It is actually pretty tan in normal light but not on a scan.
Yes though, there is actually a slight pinkish tint on the backside.
Thanks!
Login to Like
this post
Sorry I could not determine why your stamp looks the way it does or the color.
Atch is a scan from a book written on the 1908-1921 Washington Franklin stamps. It does not deal with Postage Due stamps!
I have seen these pink backs on postage due stamps.
Sorry I could not help, I'm at a lost point on your stamps.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks for the help!
I appreciate it!
That is a helpful snippet.
I guess it could be inferior ink!
Login to Like
this post
I came across a block of 2c red W-F's with aniline dye ("pink back") the last time I started to sort some stamps. Since both blocks are MNH the dye hasdn't faded from soaking. Thought it might be of interest
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
What is the Cat. number?
Login to Like
this post
Scott #425 is the pink back. Didn't check the normal back one, just used it to show the contrast.
Login to Like
this post
Many thank yous!
Login to Like
this post
Thanks!
That seems to clarify some of this...
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
Happy Holidays, Everyone!
I've got a "due" question!
I was looking through my older postage due stamps when i came across one that looked blank.
It seems really Under-inked!
Is this a variety?
I cannot find it listed in the Standard Scott Catalog anywhere!
I've seen extreme over inking on these stamps a lot, but never Under-Inking?
Is there a Scott Number for this?
Does this add additional value to this stamp?
I've included an image of a standard one next to it for reference.
Thanks!
-Ari
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Postage Due Underinking?
Looks like environmental conditions (light?) caused it to fade.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Postage Due Underinking?
I cannot find it listed in the Standard Scott Catalog anywhere!
Go back to the Scott Cat. and in the first few pages look up "postage due" and there should be a number of the page to look for.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Postage Due Underinking?
i'd go with Ernie and say it's fading due to light (although soaking in some fluids could also be the culprit)
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Postage Due Underinking?
Can you determine the year of issue?
Could you scan the back of the stamp in question?
I might have a possible answer for you.
Login to Like
this post
12:50:56pm
re: Postage Due Underinking?
This postage due stamp is design 2 issued in at least 7 printings from 1894-1925. Some are watermarked with both types as well as unwatermarked. The colors range from deep claret red to carmine. At any rate, these two stamps look to have been in the sun or some other treatment has washed them out. I hope that this helps.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Postage Due Underinking?
Hello Everyone! Thanks for this great info.
When I mean I cannot find it anywhere, I mean I cannot find under-inking in the postage due section of the standard catalog for 2024.
It could be previous watermark fluid I guess.
Although, to the best of my knowledge when I bought these stamps were in a dark shoebox for 30+ years allegedly!
I checked on my T3 Signoscope LED, and it is watermark 191 (DL), so it has to be the deep claret issue of 95-97. This makes it #J38 (UNH)
Though, this stamp definitely does not look deep claret.
Maybe a faded Carmine?
I've included a scan of the back of the stamp, which looks like the front since it is so faded!
I really appreciate all of this help!
Thanks!
-Ari
moderator - tweaked formatting
(Modified by Moderator on 2024-12-27 05:52:59)
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Postage Due Underinking?
would describe the back to appear pink?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Postage Due Underinking?
It is actually pretty tan in normal light but not on a scan.
Yes though, there is actually a slight pinkish tint on the backside.
Thanks!
Login to Like
this post
re: Postage Due Underinking?
Sorry I could not determine why your stamp looks the way it does or the color.
Atch is a scan from a book written on the 1908-1921 Washington Franklin stamps. It does not deal with Postage Due stamps!
I have seen these pink backs on postage due stamps.
Sorry I could not help, I'm at a lost point on your stamps.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Postage Due Underinking?
Thanks for the help!
I appreciate it!
That is a helpful snippet.
I guess it could be inferior ink!
Login to Like
this post
10:13:30pm
re: Postage Due Underinking?
I came across a block of 2c red W-F's with aniline dye ("pink back") the last time I started to sort some stamps. Since both blocks are MNH the dye hasdn't faded from soaking. Thought it might be of interest
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
07:50:24am
re: Postage Due Underinking?
Scott #425 is the pink back. Didn't check the normal back one, just used it to show the contrast.
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Postage Due Underinking?
Thanks!
That seems to clarify some of this...
Login to Like
this post