Confused About Status of USA Scott 540A
Apr 14, 2021 19:05:14 GMT -5
via mobile
stampie78, coastwatcher, and 1 more like this
Post by youpiao on Apr 14, 2021 19:05:14 GMT -5
I picked this up recently after reading about it in one of Herman Herst’s “Outbursts” from 1967. Herst says this a coil stamp in which some sheets escaped before getting sliced horizontally to create coils. However, the lower case “a” indicates this stamp being a variety of Scott 540, which is a regular fully-perfed sheet stamp. The coil counterpart of which this stamp would be a variety is Scott 492.
My confusion: Why is this not listed as an uncut coil variety, instead of partial-perf sheet variety?
If it is the same stamp as 492, why is the color of 540a called carmine rose, while 492 is carmine?
Is this stamp generally considered an error or a variety, these days. (Herst says, “While technically speaking they are not errors, they are Scott-listed varieties, and because of the absence of horizontal perforations, they are truly part perforates.”)
It seems to me that, either way, if this is a part perf sheet stamp or an uncut coil, it is not what was intended, and therefore an error.
Not that it matters a whit to me either way; however, I have been requested to do an episode of TTS on affordable error stamps, and am wondering if this would qualify (as an error, not affordable, though I certainly picked this one up at an affordable price).
PS I don’t have my desktop computer right now. Can someone tell me if this image displays too large? I used the “medium” image link.
My confusion: Why is this not listed as an uncut coil variety, instead of partial-perf sheet variety?
If it is the same stamp as 492, why is the color of 540a called carmine rose, while 492 is carmine?
Is this stamp generally considered an error or a variety, these days. (Herst says, “While technically speaking they are not errors, they are Scott-listed varieties, and because of the absence of horizontal perforations, they are truly part perforates.”)
It seems to me that, either way, if this is a part perf sheet stamp or an uncut coil, it is not what was intended, and therefore an error.
Not that it matters a whit to me either way; however, I have been requested to do an episode of TTS on affordable error stamps, and am wondering if this would qualify (as an error, not affordable, though I certainly picked this one up at an affordable price).
PS I don’t have my desktop computer right now. Can someone tell me if this image displays too large? I used the “medium” image link.
Stamps - the bear necessities of life.
):
(I just need to shoot myself in the foot for full compliance with Scott, but I don't own a gun). The missed production step is the horizontal perforation -- therefore, in my "opinion" this would constitute a major error. The original error panes for #538a and #540a were acquired by Edward Worden.