Farley's Follies - Identifications

Why are there 2 Scott #s for essentially the same thing?

730 / 766 - Century of Progress / Fort Dearborn
*The only difference I can see is possible the plate #'s. 21159 / 21145

731 / 767 - Century of Progress / Federal Building at Chicago
*The only difference I can see her are also the plate #'s. 21160 / 21146

735 / 768 - Byrd Antarctic Expedition
*Only the one plate #21184. These are interchangeable? Is there any way to differentiate?

750 / 770 - Mt. Rainier (Same as above)
751 / 769 - Yosemite (Same as above)

By the same token. The singles for the last two 750a / 758 and 751a / 756 are also indistinguishable from one another.

Please confirm for me or tell me where I've gone astray.

This should answer your questions:

http://goscf.com/t/54752&whichpage=1

See also "Farley Souvenir Sheets Margins Question" http://goscf.com/t/74996

You are correct, the single stamps are generally indistinguishable between the original issue and the special printings. The best method to know if a stamp (or pane) is from the special printing is when it has an extra wide margin on 1 or 2 sides. The original 1933-1934 issues were only available to the public as individual souvenir sheets of 6 stamps or 25 stamps, but the 1935 special printings were sold in complete sheets containing 9 or 20 or 25 full souvenir sheets. Therefore a stamp from the edge of a souvenir sheet that has an extra wide margin must have come from one of the large special printing panes.

Also gutter pairs and pairs with horizontal or vertical guidelines between the stamps (e.g. 733/753) are only available on the special printings. If the 750-751 has original gum they are most likely from the original 1934 printing but this is not guaranteed since the 769-770 were available with original gum on-demand (and are scarce), so again the wide margins are really the only true method to identify those.

Thanks for the links. I've been reading a lot on this topic. My head is still spinning. I think I have a grasp on some of it but it looks like there are a few issues that are literally indistinguishable from one another without having extra margins or gutters, etc. I just want to fill my album spot and want to at least try to get the right one in the right spot.

You are exactly correct in that statement and you are actually showing knowledge on the matter.

Now to just add a bit more information, the special Farley sheets were sold without gum. HOWEVER, one was allowed to send in full press sheets, uncut, for gumming. That is why you find the listings on the special Farley sheets as NGAI (no gum as issued) and gummed.

It is wonderfully interesting and challenging area. Of course if you just get a set of all of the Farley special press sheets, then it would really show the differences. But finding an album to house is a nearly insurmountable challenge. Then they belong framed on the wall and with much, much wall space and no sunlight. Few stamp rooms can offer that.

Take care,

Dan

I'm still toiling in all of this Farley Folly fiasco.

735, 750, and 751 were all issued in sheets of six stamps, while their matching counterparts the following year, 768, 770, and 769 respectively, were all issued in sheets of 20 panes of 6 that were then expected to be cut down.

Here's what I find interesting. I have Mystic's Hingeless Album and it includes a spot for 735a, 750a, and 751a but not for 768a, 769a, or 770a. It would seem more likely that someone would cut down the latter panes of 6 since the larger sheets required cutting to begin with.

I do believe in the case of 750a and 751a, they should be gummed as those sheets were issued gummed. This should be pretty straight forward.

735a is indistinguishable from 768a and could be cut from a 768 sheet I believe. The 768a could be distinguished definitively if it includes a gutter that exceeds what is possible from a 735 sheet. I think I have that right.

I'm still struggling with 756 and 758 as it seems they could have been cut from panes of 6 of 770 and 769. Am I right on that?

I've read a lot of threads and still struggle keeping this straight. I working backwards in time and want to get through this Farley stuff before plodding backwards through time. :)

Harpo,
As noted earlier, singles (and some multiples) can be problematic. When in doubt, post an image here for us to discuss.
Yes reading is important, but there is no substitute for sorting through actual material.
Also, collect to satisfy, your own collecting interests rather than being a slave to an album maker's marketing of what and how you should collect.

John, my current collecting interest is filling the spots in this particular album. I definitely have been reading a lot on this topic but sometimes I feel like I'm caught in an Excel circular reference!

I think typing it out helps me understand. I will definitely post an image. That's a good idea as well.

Yes, I believe that is correct. If a single stamp is cut out of a 769 souvenir sheet and the margins are trimmed to normal stamp size, I am not aware of any way to identify it from a single #756. I don't know why anyone would trim the margins off a 769a, as the 769a catalogs for $2.10 and the 756 is just 25 cents. Normally when two things are indistinguishable we treat them as the lesser-valued item. Only when a part of the souvenir sheet margin is attached does it obtain the status of the higher-valued 769a. Here is my #756 which makes be happy knowing it is from the 756 sheet because it shows parts of stamps on all 4 sides, and a guideline, which is not present on the #769.


Off-topic but here is another example that can be indistinguishable as a single stamp. The bottom stamp is an error that has no "8 Cents" denomination, it is a Scott #J96a. However if the pair were separated, there would be no way to tell if the single stamp was missing "8 cents" or missing some other denomination. Thus, Scott says "All single stamps with denomination omitted are cataloged as J89a" which is the more common "1 cent" denomination. It may not always be accurate, but without any additional information to go by, we have to assume a stamp is the least expensive of the possible options.

This one came in the album I have already. Scott 756. It measures 25mm wide by 39mm tall.

It cannot have been cut from Scott 751 as those precut sheets of 6 were gummed. (It could be a 751a that had the gum removed but let's assume that is unlikely.)

Scott 740 is perforated. (Someone could have cut the perforations from a 740 and removed the gum but let's assume that is also unlikely.)

It could have been cut from Scott 769 and it could be a 769a.

With no other discernable clues, while this could technically be a 769a, without the added proof (wide margins, lines, etc.), most people would only accept this stamp as a lesser valued 756.

Am I on point?

This may help as well:

https://api.siegelauctions.com/file...wnload=false

If you want a challenge beyond the album, try to find identifiable Farley special printing pieces on cover which are not FDCs. So much more interesting to have the strip of 3 straddle the gutter than just half a souvenir sheet.