Perhaps someone can help me solve this problem. I have a carmine, 10c, picture of King Alfonso XIII. I found a Scott #299, with the same criteria, save one. My stamp has no control number on the back. Per Scott, it should have the control number. I've been unable to find any reference to this stamp without the control number. Does anyone know if it exists without the control number, or do I have a forgery, or an error?
It is no dilemma. Soak off the paper. The stamp is no longer mint, and in its current condition it is not worth more than minimal value. Nothing to lose. The control number will most likely be found once the paper is soaked off. If you don't want to soak the paper off the stamp, then hold it up to a bright light. You might be able to see the control number through the paper.
Saying at the onset in your first post that the stamp doesn't have a control number on the back, asking if anyone knows if the stamp comes without the control number, then posing questions if the stamp could be a forgery or error without divulging that there is paper on the back of the stamp, is completely misleading and a waste of other peoples' time when they go to look up the stamp to try to find the answers to your questions. Why you didn't state the entire condition of the stamp from the start is beyond my comprehension.
"Saying at the onset in your first post that the stamp doesn't have a control number on the back, asking if anyone knows if the stamp comes without the control number, then posing questions if the stamp could be a forgery or error without divulging that there is paper on the back of the stamp, is completely misleading and a waste of other peoples' time when they go to look up the stamp to try to find the answers to your questions. Why you didn't state the entire condition of the stamp from the start is beyond my comprehension."
Love ya Michael but a tad bit snarky there. Dude is just throwing out some conjecture. Did anyone really have their "time wasted"?
We all have days when patience is in short supply. I suspected there were extenuating circumstances for the "missing" control number which is why I asked for picture of the back.
I believe the Edifil catalog does list some of these stamps without a control number but I would think the stamp would have to be mint with full original gum to qualify.
Thanks to every one who has been giving me advice on this stamp. And Michael, if you feel your time has been wasted, please feel free to ignore any further queries I may post. Hopefully you were just having a bad day, and are not this short with every one who posts a question. Had I been thinking the whole thing through, I would have just soaked it to begin with, it's not a spectacular stamp! Again thanks to all, and I apologize for wasting your time.
" I would think the stamp would have to be mint with full original gum to qualify."
The control numbers were printed on the back side of the stamps before the gum was applied. The ink used to print the control numbers is not water soluble. You will see the control number on used stamps.
"The control numbers were printed on the back side of the stamps before the gum was applied. The ink used to print the control numbers is not water soluble. You will see the control number on used stamps."
Yes, I know. The only reason I said that is that if the stamp has the original gum for stamps without the control number is that it is less likely to have been tampered with or damaged.
With the warning that forgeries of these stamps exist, it would also send a warning sign that stamps without a control number, except for the 2c stamp, could be forgeries.