Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I received a few mint USA stamps as change from an approval lot I recently won here on SOR.
One item was a strip of 3 of the Hugo Black 5c stamp from the Great American Series.
Scott # 2172 issued in 1986.
In my Great American collection, I am missing the Hugo Black stamp with the tagging omitted and the one with large block tagging (light shade).
When I checked the tagging on the strip, I was suprised to see it had a split tag!
Wow, neat!
It was small block tagged. I kept a pair and added them to my Great American pages.
Here is a pic of the single...
When I added the pair to my album, I got to wondering about the Scott listing for this stamp, so checked my Scott US Specialized catalog from 2010. It only lists two things: 2172 Large Block Tagging issued 27 Feb 1986, and 2172a Tagging omitted. But I have examples of two different size taggings in my album. In my album page I have
2172 Small Block Tag 27 Feb 1986
2172 Large Block Tag 2002
2172 Large Block Tag Light Shade 2002 (I am missing this one)
2172a Tagging Omitted (I am missing this one)
Can someone tell me if the Scott Cat has been updated to show 2 sizes of block tagging for this stamp. Does anyone know if there was a reprint issied in 2002?
Thanks,
Dave N.
Login to Like
this post
Dave,
I just received my copy of the 2018 Scott US Specialized Catalogue two days ago. Here is the listing for #2172:
2172 - 5c dark olive green, large block tagging
2172a - same as 2172, tagging omitted
2172b - 5c light olive green, large block tagging
There is no mention of "small block tagging."
I could not find any entry related to a reprint in 2002.
Hope this helps.
--Doug
Login to Like
this post
Thanks Doug,
I think I'll post a pic (when I get a chance) of the ones I have, showing the different tagging sizes - Just for grins....
Dave N.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
The image posted is just an alignment of the tagging mat vs the mat. Shifts are common. It is clear it is large block tagging. I suspect there are many more with the stripe on a different area of the stamp.
It is possible the light version was the result of a second printing.
Login to Like
this post
Thought it might be interesting to show some more of the tagging on this Great American Hugo Black 5c stamp.
Here's the pair with the tagging split/offset. While it may be plentiful/common with this offset, I think it is an interesting and neat little addition to my collection.
It has what I'm calling small block tagging, even though Scott only recognizes One size (Large Block) of tagging for this stamp issue.
Next is a comparison of what I'm calling small and large block tagging for this issue.
The small block tagging is on the top row of 3. Looking at the width of the tag, it extends approximately from the top of the Letters in "Hugo Black" on the left, to the edge of the design on the right. Looking at the heigth of the tag it goes from approximately the very top of Mr. Black's head/top of the design to the bottom edge of the "5 USA".
The large block taggin is on the bottom row of 3. Looking at the width of the tag, it is somewhat wider than on the small block tagging examples. Looking at the heigth of the tag it is somewhat taller than on the small block tagging examples.
It would be interesting to have a pair of the "large block tagging" ones. One on top of the other to see the spacing of the "large block tagging" in comparison to the spacing between the "small block tagging".
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
It looks like you've discovered a bona fide variety, one that the Scott editors would note. I hope you'll contact them at some point.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
You see the tagging shifts on many issues especially the Great Americans. The "block" itself is not any different size (still a large block by definition) but the location of it to the relative design is moving.
Login to Like
this post
Just checked my copy of Stephen Esrati's "Great Americans" (25th Revision, 2006) and under the 5c Hugo Black section it has a box showing "Known Black Varieties". It lists Plates 1,2 Large and small block tagging. So This is not a new discover, but I wonder why it is not Scott listed?
Anyone know how I can contact the Scott editors?
Dave N.
Login to Like
this post
Here are the names, job titles and roles, and email addresses for the Amos Media Stamp Group (which includes the Scott Catalogue):
http://www.linns.com/contact-us/editorial.html
Login to Like
this post
Thanks Doug Perry!
I contacted Mr. Snee there and he very quickly responded.
From his response that the difference in tagging size is due to tagging mat wear, my take away is that in my pics, the larger size tagging would be the normal large block tag that Scott identifies. The smaller size tagging would be due to the tagging mat wear.
I guess I can live with that expanation Always interestng stuff to learn!
It does seem a little odd to me that on my stamps with the tagging mat wear, they all seem to have the same amount of wear. If the size difference was due to mat wear, I would expect to see a variation in the tag size, not two distict sizes. Maybe there are other tag block sizes out there that do show that variation in tag block size and I just dont have enough examples to see it.
Dave N.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I suspect the cataloging the issue with a wear scenario means that it is changing so there so there may be a largest and smallest but many in between. This has been seen this with year dates. There are small and large dates but some stamp have dates with sizes in between so once has to decide where you draw the line.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Everyone,
I received a few mint USA stamps as change from an approval lot I recently won here on SOR.
One item was a strip of 3 of the Hugo Black 5c stamp from the Great American Series.
Scott # 2172 issued in 1986.
In my Great American collection, I am missing the Hugo Black stamp with the tagging omitted and the one with large block tagging (light shade).
When I checked the tagging on the strip, I was suprised to see it had a split tag!
Wow, neat!
It was small block tagged. I kept a pair and added them to my Great American pages.
Here is a pic of the single...
When I added the pair to my album, I got to wondering about the Scott listing for this stamp, so checked my Scott US Specialized catalog from 2010. It only lists two things: 2172 Large Block Tagging issued 27 Feb 1986, and 2172a Tagging omitted. But I have examples of two different size taggings in my album. In my album page I have
2172 Small Block Tag 27 Feb 1986
2172 Large Block Tag 2002
2172 Large Block Tag Light Shade 2002 (I am missing this one)
2172a Tagging Omitted (I am missing this one)
Can someone tell me if the Scott Cat has been updated to show 2 sizes of block tagging for this stamp. Does anyone know if there was a reprint issied in 2002?
Thanks,
Dave N.
Login to Like
this post
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
Dave,
I just received my copy of the 2018 Scott US Specialized Catalogue two days ago. Here is the listing for #2172:
2172 - 5c dark olive green, large block tagging
2172a - same as 2172, tagging omitted
2172b - 5c light olive green, large block tagging
There is no mention of "small block tagging."
I could not find any entry related to a reprint in 2002.
Hope this helps.
--Doug
Login to Like
this post
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
Thanks Doug,
I think I'll post a pic (when I get a chance) of the ones I have, showing the different tagging sizes - Just for grins....
Dave N.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
The image posted is just an alignment of the tagging mat vs the mat. Shifts are common. It is clear it is large block tagging. I suspect there are many more with the stripe on a different area of the stamp.
It is possible the light version was the result of a second printing.
Login to Like
this post
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
Thought it might be interesting to show some more of the tagging on this Great American Hugo Black 5c stamp.
Here's the pair with the tagging split/offset. While it may be plentiful/common with this offset, I think it is an interesting and neat little addition to my collection.
It has what I'm calling small block tagging, even though Scott only recognizes One size (Large Block) of tagging for this stamp issue.
Next is a comparison of what I'm calling small and large block tagging for this issue.
The small block tagging is on the top row of 3. Looking at the width of the tag, it extends approximately from the top of the Letters in "Hugo Black" on the left, to the edge of the design on the right. Looking at the heigth of the tag it goes from approximately the very top of Mr. Black's head/top of the design to the bottom edge of the "5 USA".
The large block taggin is on the bottom row of 3. Looking at the width of the tag, it is somewhat wider than on the small block tagging examples. Looking at the heigth of the tag it is somewhat taller than on the small block tagging examples.
It would be interesting to have a pair of the "large block tagging" ones. One on top of the other to see the spacing of the "large block tagging" in comparison to the spacing between the "small block tagging".
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
It looks like you've discovered a bona fide variety, one that the Scott editors would note. I hope you'll contact them at some point.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
You see the tagging shifts on many issues especially the Great Americans. The "block" itself is not any different size (still a large block by definition) but the location of it to the relative design is moving.
Login to Like
this post
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
Just checked my copy of Stephen Esrati's "Great Americans" (25th Revision, 2006) and under the 5c Hugo Black section it has a box showing "Known Black Varieties". It lists Plates 1,2 Large and small block tagging. So This is not a new discover, but I wonder why it is not Scott listed?
Anyone know how I can contact the Scott editors?
Dave N.
Login to Like
this post
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
Here are the names, job titles and roles, and email addresses for the Amos Media Stamp Group (which includes the Scott Catalogue):
http://www.linns.com/contact-us/editorial.html
Login to Like
this post
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
Thanks Doug Perry!
I contacted Mr. Snee there and he very quickly responded.
From his response that the difference in tagging size is due to tagging mat wear, my take away is that in my pics, the larger size tagging would be the normal large block tag that Scott identifies. The smaller size tagging would be due to the tagging mat wear.
I guess I can live with that expanation Always interestng stuff to learn!
It does seem a little odd to me that on my stamps with the tagging mat wear, they all seem to have the same amount of wear. If the size difference was due to mat wear, I would expect to see a variation in the tag size, not two distict sizes. Maybe there are other tag block sizes out there that do show that variation in tag block size and I just dont have enough examples to see it.
Dave N.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Hugo Black 5c SN 2172 Tagging
I suspect the cataloging the issue with a wear scenario means that it is changing so there so there may be a largest and smallest but many in between. This has been seen this with year dates. There are small and large dates but some stamp have dates with sizes in between so once has to decide where you draw the line.
Login to Like
this post