Is This Stamp Doubled?

I've sort of specialized in these and the rest of the officials for years now.

The OP stamp is ribbed paper, O57sb which typically shows that raggedness to the perfs.
It also has a slight kiss print on the over print, which is fairly common, especially on that stamp.

As I understand it, that is from the handling of the sheet during printing, where the sheet touched the plate briefly before being laid flat.
Being an accidental thing, each one is different.

There is a doubled over print that looks very different, and has a variety of separation distances from the paper slipping slightly as it was pressed.

A double overprint. Not separated by as much as I'd like but both impressions are complete.

I should send it in for a cert, I'd been told that a well connected collector kept new finds from being certified so his would remain the only one. But I've seen one or two since then, so maybe.

How exactly do you think anyone could actually do that? Unless the collector owned the stamp and did not send it in. There is no way a collector could keep anyone else from sending in anything they like, and no way to keep the various certifying groups from doing so.

Why would an owner of such a "unique" item think that not certifying it meant that it would remain the only one? That doesn't make sense.

Doubled or only kissed? I apologize for the different image sizes.

All kiss prints. The first one has some interesting features, a lot of separation and weirdness going on with both Es.
The third one is a dry print or underinked, a more interesting printing problem.
Both are ones I'd buy if I saw them.


I'll clarify the thing about the double overprint.
What I was told, so getting it at best thirdhand is that the first double overprint on O57s that was certified was sent in by a very influential collector.
He convinced the expertizing bodies or at least one, that double overprints with a different degree of separation were not valid double overprints. Supposedly so his would stay unique
So for some time, his example was the only one with a cert, and others that were sent in were not certified as double overprints.
This was told to me by someone far more expert who also had one, when I showed him the scans I posted.

It's a hobby politics thing that I can't verify, and both that collector and the one who told me that have passed.

I'd have to find my copy, but if I remember it right the double overprint on the 1c navy was the one in Combs book.

I am not trying to belabor a point, and I defer to the specialists here who have contributed BUT questions remain for me.

One question is:

On the OP's stamp the bottom of the letters are not aligned. Take the "C' and "I" for example. Why is the bottom of the "I" so much higher than the "C"? Is it an inking issue?

It would be deeply appreciated if I could bring this to closure in my mind.

If that's just a kiss it was pretty steamy! The S, P, E, C, I, and E show additional ink at the bottom of the overprint, especially the S. All eight letters show additional ink at the top.



All five overprints in my previous post are aligned, except four of them have what's called a Dropped S. I haven't read any reason for the dropped S but it is common. My theory is it's plate attachment is offset vertically and all those dropped S's are upside down. Seems to get more common during the 2nd Printing. 35 of the 50 stamps of the 2nd Printing shown in the half sheet of O25Sb showing the explosion of the C on position 28 sold by Siegal some years back have dropped S's.
Edit for Correction: The 1st printing has more dropped S's. Checking the same source My file of copied Seigal files, I find a sheet of 90 O1S, missing the top row, has 32 of 40 dropped S's in the same area of the overprint plate. Can't find my way back into those images right now or I would link them. However that count proves offers evidence that the overprint plate was different 1st and 2nd printing.

Edit to add, Wasn't you rogdcam that said conformation bias is real?

Edit to correct myself.

Why yes, I did say that. I am not disagreeing with what people are saying here but rather looking for an answer as to why the letters are so misaligned. If the experts say it is genuine that is awesome but would love to understand clearly the why of the matter.

when I was talking to George Sayers years ago, 2010ish, he said the overprints were done with individual type. And that some of the smaller misalignments were due to
the pressman using a type of mallet periodically to assure the type was all still at the same height.
That probably doesn't explain the dropped S, as there were usually blank bars keeping the rows consistent. An upside down piece of type that had a bit more space at what should have been the top of the letter makes a lot of sense.

Another thing I've been lax about verifying with the local printing museum.
My pace on some things can best be described as glacial.

Thank you!

I have often wondered how 100 eight letter words were held into position, approximately below Ben's chin in about the center of the stamp. Had to withstand a lot of pressure!
Of course I'm sure the journeymen were busy doing more important work, let the apprentices do that. Continental Bank Note was a pretty busy place July 1875. 10,000 each of every stamp produced plus the 92 face different new Departmental stamps that were just being engraved. Yeah, apprentices.

Edit to add;
The S's. When the S is even, the upper curve (the very end of the letter) has a bell shape like the C. When it's low, the end is parallel

Plus, they had to make coffee runs to DD.

And there's that!