Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I've been arranging my Argentina stamps on vario stock pages getting them ready for trade or giveaway and ran into a couple that I am having trouble identifying.
According to my year 2000 Scott catalog, they are illustration number A278 Inca Bridge, Mendoza. The original issue for this 10 peso denomination was #696 issued in 1960 and is photograveuer with watermark 90 (RA in sun). These stamps dont look photograveuer to me, they looklithograph (sorry, but my scanner only goes to 600). There is a 1970 issue of these stamps that are lithograph - #889 that are unwatermarked.
mine have the watermark 90 though so would make them 889a. Hovever, mine have date cancellations that are 1962/1963 which would eliminate them being 889a and brings me back to #696. But these arent photograveure so they can't be 696.
Can anyone help me? Am I making a mistake somewhere? Or is there an error or omission in the Scott catalog?
Edit- Forgot to mention, the 2000 Scott cat lists the 889a at $47.50!
Login to Like
this post
Hard to tell from the scan but the enlargement looks like a Photogravure printing. In litho the straight edges are very distinct. Yours looks very much like small dots butting into the white areas.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks for the input sheepshanks,
I've compared it to other photograveuer stamps from Argentina on those I can see the
screen patern, but not on these two.
Does anyone have a photogravure example (Scott # 696) that they can post a close up of showing the screen pattern?
Dave N.
Login to Like
this post
Here is a close up of a 696 photo, watermarked #90.
Hope this helps.
Login to Like
this post
Here is a 600dpi scan of the same stamp as the close up above.
Login to Like
this post
michael78651,
Thanks for chiming in. My Scott cat says that the perf 13 x 13 1/2 is for up to # 689, but then it changes to perf 13 1/2 for 690 on.
I decided to go a different route now...
I have examples from this series of the same stamp in both printing styles: The 1 Peso Sunflower. Scott # 690 (photo) and 690B (litho).
In the 690, the grid can be plainly seen in the frame and lightly shaded areas of the design. I compared my 10 peso stamp in question with both the 690 and 690B and to me, the one in question looks a lot more like the 690B (litho).
I scanned at 600 but then in Paint, resized by 150%.
In the scan, from left to right is 690(photo), 690B(litho), Stamp in question.
Login to Like
this post
oops. I stand corrected on the perfs. I'll remove that response!
But, there is a color difference between the two issues. #696 is light red brown, while the 889 and 889a are dull red. How distinctive those shades are I don't know. I thought I had the two, but it looks like what I thought was 889 may be a 696. I need to double check the watermark.
Login to Like
this post
Here is a close-up of 690a, photo, paper 2, 27x39mm. perf 13.5
This image is of the 50c 688, typo
This is of the 3 peso blue#886
As you can see there is a real distinct difference between the Litho, photo and typo.
I think that maybe the 10p we have is probably Typo rather than Litho, and I have no idea where that is in Scott.
Login to Like
this post
Here is a page to put it in context. It is not complete, nor close up, and it dates back to when I was first trying to fill in all the varieties, looking at all my duplicates, and to see what I was missing. It may help to put it all on one page to compare.
rrr...
Corrected on October 8. Thanks Roy!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks rrraphy..your examples are most helpful..i had one in the wrong space..between the Argentina and the Republica Argentina..i wish scott had more illustrations ! phil
Login to Like
this post
10:44:06pm
That's a really useful display Ralph. Really shows the difference in colours.
However, one small correction. The two rows of stamps you have beside #930 and 931 are actually all #930. #931 is a different design - the small Belgrano definitive, design A425.
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Cool show of the varieties Ralph. Great thread overall. This is what makes SoR.
Ernie
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks Roy for catching the mistake. I will redo this chart and add a Scott #989 (although it will not show the Watermark, but it has been verified) I currently have for the sake of completeness (slight facial difference as you can see).
Wish I had the others missing types.
Come to think of it, I have never had an Argentina Approval Book, and it may be time!
I have accumulated a fair amount of extras in my quest for some of the cheapest, and yet most difficult to find, official departmental stamps.
Anyone specializing there as well, I would like to compare notes on why I still cannot find some of the cheapest ones?
I will replace the chart above and delete the one currently displayed.
rrr...
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
02:16:56am
" ...Come to think of it, I have never had an Argentina Approval Book, and it may be time!. ..."
Some stamps are so cheap, and so common, they are hardly worth the time to put in an approval book. Some clubs have a minimum value for a book to enter their circuits, ergo no books, and except for downtown Buenos Aires, no organized inventory.
Login to Like
this post
For those into the many varieties of Argentina stamps of the post war period visit the "some stamps" website. There is also a long tutorial on the "Australian Board" (with no interruptions from "The Sherriff")
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
Hi Everyone,
I've been arranging my Argentina stamps on vario stock pages getting them ready for trade or giveaway and ran into a couple that I am having trouble identifying.
According to my year 2000 Scott catalog, they are illustration number A278 Inca Bridge, Mendoza. The original issue for this 10 peso denomination was #696 issued in 1960 and is photograveuer with watermark 90 (RA in sun). These stamps dont look photograveuer to me, they looklithograph (sorry, but my scanner only goes to 600). There is a 1970 issue of these stamps that are lithograph - #889 that are unwatermarked.
mine have the watermark 90 though so would make them 889a. Hovever, mine have date cancellations that are 1962/1963 which would eliminate them being 889a and brings me back to #696. But these arent photograveure so they can't be 696.
Can anyone help me? Am I making a mistake somewhere? Or is there an error or omission in the Scott catalog?
Edit- Forgot to mention, the 2000 Scott cat lists the 889a at $47.50!
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Hard to tell from the scan but the enlargement looks like a Photogravure printing. In litho the straight edges are very distinct. Yours looks very much like small dots butting into the white areas.
Login to Like
this post
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Thanks for the input sheepshanks,
I've compared it to other photograveuer stamps from Argentina on those I can see the
screen patern, but not on these two.
Does anyone have a photogravure example (Scott # 696) that they can post a close up of showing the screen pattern?
Dave N.
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Here is a close up of a 696 photo, watermarked #90.
Hope this helps.
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Here is a 600dpi scan of the same stamp as the close up above.
Login to Like
this post
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
michael78651,
Thanks for chiming in. My Scott cat says that the perf 13 x 13 1/2 is for up to # 689, but then it changes to perf 13 1/2 for 690 on.
I decided to go a different route now...
I have examples from this series of the same stamp in both printing styles: The 1 Peso Sunflower. Scott # 690 (photo) and 690B (litho).
In the 690, the grid can be plainly seen in the frame and lightly shaded areas of the design. I compared my 10 peso stamp in question with both the 690 and 690B and to me, the one in question looks a lot more like the 690B (litho).
I scanned at 600 but then in Paint, resized by 150%.
In the scan, from left to right is 690(photo), 690B(litho), Stamp in question.
Login to Like
this post
04:52:57pm
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
oops. I stand corrected on the perfs. I'll remove that response!
But, there is a color difference between the two issues. #696 is light red brown, while the 889 and 889a are dull red. How distinctive those shades are I don't know. I thought I had the two, but it looks like what I thought was 889 may be a 696. I need to double check the watermark.
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Here is a close-up of 690a, photo, paper 2, 27x39mm. perf 13.5
This image is of the 50c 688, typo
This is of the 3 peso blue#886
As you can see there is a real distinct difference between the Litho, photo and typo.
I think that maybe the 10p we have is probably Typo rather than Litho, and I have no idea where that is in Scott.
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Here is a page to put it in context. It is not complete, nor close up, and it dates back to when I was first trying to fill in all the varieties, looking at all my duplicates, and to see what I was missing. It may help to put it all on one page to compare.
rrr...
Corrected on October 8. Thanks Roy!
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Auctions
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Thanks rrraphy..your examples are most helpful..i had one in the wrong space..between the Argentina and the Republica Argentina..i wish scott had more illustrations ! phil
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
07 Oct 2017
10:44:06pm
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
That's a really useful display Ralph. Really shows the difference in colours.
However, one small correction. The two rows of stamps you have beside #930 and 931 are actually all #930. #931 is a different design - the small Belgrano definitive, design A425.
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
01:33:06am
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Cool show of the varieties Ralph. Great thread overall. This is what makes SoR.
Ernie
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
Thanks Roy for catching the mistake. I will redo this chart and add a Scott #989 (although it will not show the Watermark, but it has been verified) I currently have for the sake of completeness (slight facial difference as you can see).
Wish I had the others missing types.
Come to think of it, I have never had an Argentina Approval Book, and it may be time!
I have accumulated a fair amount of extras in my quest for some of the cheapest, and yet most difficult to find, official departmental stamps.
Anyone specializing there as well, I would like to compare notes on why I still cannot find some of the cheapest ones?
I will replace the chart above and delete the one currently displayed.
rrr...
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
11 Oct 2017
02:16:56am
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
" ...Come to think of it, I have never had an Argentina Approval Book, and it may be time!. ..."
Some stamps are so cheap, and so common, they are hardly worth the time to put in an approval book. Some clubs have a minimum value for a book to enter their circuits, ergo no books, and except for downtown Buenos Aires, no organized inventory.
Login to Like
this post
12:38:45pm
re: Argentina Scott # 889a?
For those into the many varieties of Argentina stamps of the post war period visit the "some stamps" website. There is also a long tutorial on the "Australian Board" (with no interruptions from "The Sherriff")
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post