Can anyone post a high-res scan of their original print C2 4-4? I bought a copy off ebay nystamps last month but returned because fewer lines were hitting the top. Shouldn't the vertical lines on the rostrum hit the top just like 4-3?
Now he's selling another copy which looks kind of lacking in the vertical lines department, as an original print.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/nystamps-PR-Ch ... :rk:1:pf:0
He can't possibly get it wrong two sales in a row!?
Thanks for any advice.
But note the C2 4-4's are honestly more difficult to see than the 4-3's.
The internet is not friendly to high resolution scans.
And then we run into the same problem many have faced, posting an image on this forum. Sorry, scanned it for you buy not smart enough to post.
https://philachina.org/chinese-peoples- ... 0%E5%BF%B5
The scan of the stamp is very bad. Looks like reprint, but the scan is such bad, part of it is guessing.
But I am also surprised that they mention narrow and wide versions. I had never seen that before. I will have to go back and check my sets of these, and I guess many other sets.
Always something new to learn about Chinese stamps, thank you again.
sorry I meant C2NE
Thanks for the Philachina link. The resolution is fairly high once you click on the individual pictures.
To your point, their original C2NE 4-4 looks like a lot like a reprint to me as well. Almost none of the vertical lines reach the top of the rostrum, particularly on the left. The vertical lines, on the right of the rostrum, look very thin, although they do reach the top. It does not compare well at all with my original C2 (Unified) 4-4, which has clear bold lines going all the way to the top of the rostrum, from left to right.
Philachina's original C2NE 4-4 also doesn't compare well with their own original C2NE 4-3, which has far more lines.
On the other hand, looking at their reprint C2NE 4-4, they could argue that their original C2NE 4-4 has relatively more, thicker lines reaching the top of the rostrum.
If we trust Philachina's original specimens, using the vertical lines as the criteria to distinguish reprints, then we have to agree that (1) original C2NE 4-4 has more lines than the reprint C2NE 4-4; but (2) original C2NE 4-4 has fewer lines than C2 4-4; and (3) original C2NE 4-4 has fewer lines than C2NE 4-3 as well.
I attached a copy of the C2NE 4-4 I bought from nystamps (eBay) which I subsequently rejected and returned. He put it back up for sale this week, again as an original. His opinion, but it looks awfully like Philachina's original.
- IMG_20181216_015454.jpg (427.93 KiB) Viewed 1853 times
You just rejected and returned a fine original stamp to the eBay seller.
Maybe your eyes can't see this clearly so I made a 200% scan for you and add some arrows (left original / right the reprint), both from the website.
Do you also noticed the original and reprint have a different color shading? Maybe this is for you easier to see as the small details.
- Untitled-1.jpg (211.8 KiB) Viewed 1849 times
I'll also concede that the copy I returned to nystamps looks a heck of a lot like the original at Philachina.
But how do you reconcile that their original C2NE 4-4 does not have as many vertical lines as their original C2NE 4-3? I attached a 200% side-by-side comparison. Maybe that's just the way C2NE 4-4 was engraved?
Furthermore, Philachina's original C2NE 4-4 doesn't even come close to the vertical lines we seen in original C2 unified 4-4.
If those scans are authoritative, can we agree that we are seeing, in terms of vertical lines: (1) reprint C2NE 4-4 < (2) original C2NE 4-4 < (3) original C2 unified 4-4.
- C2NE 4-3 v 4-4.jpg (258.98 KiB) Viewed 1848 times