Talk:British Guiana 1c magenta

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Guyana (assessed as Low-importance).

Philately High‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

2003/2004 posts

I would sure like to know more about Vernon Vaughan, the sources seem to vary on his name and nationality (English vs Scottish), but the only lead I've found is that the British West Indies Study Circle might have published an article about him. Stan 17:16 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

What I am curious about in regards Vernon's story is - what was a newspaper stamp doing on an envelope found amongst correspondence? Were there any other stamps on that envelope that he soaked the stamp off - or was the stamp the solitary one? The position of the postmark suggests that there may have been others...

Stan,the BG 1c was indeed printed directly onto the newspaper...as You have interest in this subject I would like to send a hires scan of my copy. User:Kentlbaker

Vernon's story does bear investigation and study. Arno 07:04 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Was this a newspaper stamp, or was this a general purpose stamp printed on a newspaper press? This old Time Magazine story claims the latter (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,747975,00.html), but an actual philatelic source would be more trustworthy, I think. Bassington 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd; the edit history shows

02:31, 2 Nov 2004 Lord Emsworth (British Guiana 1c magenta moved to British Guiana 1¢ magenta)

yet I can't find anything at British Guiana 1¢ magenta, nor in Special:Undelete/British Guiana 1¢ magenta, and there's a real article (now reverted-to) in the history. —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps the "¢" is not good to have in titles? Stan 07:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"magenta"

Not! That's red or carmen, dude, not magenta. WB2 18:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image used was not accurate and was the wrong color and has been replaced. See discussion below. Ecphora (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase price of Penny Magenta

The article states that the sale price was $935K while a television program (History's Lost and Found) I was just watching had "evidence" (newspaper headline?) and vocal indication that the price was $850,000.

http://durianon.tripod.com/id55.html states 1980: Weinberg's syndicate sold the stamp for $935,000 (including buyer's premium) to John E. du Pont

Is the $935K the sum of $850K + $85K "buyer's premium" of 10%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JByrd (talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 May 2006

Yes. That is the customary practice.Fconaway (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive emergency issue?

The term "definitive" as used here seems to be confusing. Wasn't the stamp issued in an emergency?Fconaway

Actually, I think the term is perhaps more anachronistic, this is years before the first commemoratives. Simplest just to drop it, the link is not adding any value. Stan 02:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong image

The image of the 1c Magenta from Commons is not in fact an image of the actual stamp. For example, the actual stamp is typeset and the lettering has serifs. The Commons image has sans serif lettering. The ship is only partly present on the actual stamp, but perfect on the Commons image, etc. I'm not sure what the Commons image is, but it is not an image of the actual stamp. It may be an artist's (Photoshopped) conception of what it would look like if clean. I have replaced the image on the page accordingly. Compare the two images below: Ecphora (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the correct image, shouldn't it be changed on other sites?Fconaway (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also added an image of the 4 cent stamp here to show what it would look like if not in such bad condition. Ecphora (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This stamps looks different every time a picture appears. The last sale appears to have been an auction by Robert A. Siegel in 1980, "Rarities of the World". On Siegel's site, the stamp looks quite different.[1]Fconaway (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The image from Siegel's 1980 sales catalog and the one I posted appear to be different images of the same stamp. One shows the cancellation heavier and looks generally dirtier; the other looks cleaner. I'm not certain why. The one from Siegel's catalog certainly looks nicer and perhaps that imaged should be used, if possible. The one that was on Commons, however, was, at best, heavily Photoshopped. This can be seen by comparison of the marginal text which looks like 19th century typeface in both the Siegel image and the one I posted (serifs; thick and thin lines to the letters), but is completely different in the one that is on Commons (completely irregular, no serifs, almost hand drawn). Ecphora (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know which is the "actual" stamp without having seen it. Even the best virtual images are something short of the actual. The Commons image certainly seems to be bogus; perhaps it's a picture of a facsimile.

But there are differences between the image we have and the Siegel image: under the "ONE CENT" letters, on our image it appears that a rat has been gnawing on the outer edge. This irregular edge might appear on the "actual" stamp, but maybe not. Also, notice the difference in the 'H' of 'BRITISH' at the top. The Siegel illustration is the only authoritative picture I can find, but it is low res. and may have been altered. We shouldn't use a "cleaned-up" image if that doesn't look like the actual stamp.Fconaway (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely right about the mouse gnawing; the Siegel image has that side complete; I can't figure that out. Maybe a virtual rat gnawed the jpg. ;-) But I think that the "H" on the dirty image may be the same as on the Siegel image -- wider than expected and above the line of the other type -- although it's very difficult to make out. I'll try to find a reliable reference on this. Ecphora (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comparison; side-by-side it looks to me like there are more differences than can be explained by multiple passes of image tinkering. For instance, from my own experiments in trying to get a cancel to be more readable, I find that one ends up with black blobs in the general shapes of letters, not actual clean-edged versions. I think the image from Commons originates from a hand-drawn facsimile somehow. (Of course, as an illustration, the facsimile is not necessarily a bad choice, it's easier to see some details of interest.) Stan (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the comparison:

On Siegel's site, the stamp looks quite different.Fconaway (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think Stan's comment was about a comparison of the Commons image with the About.com image, not about the Siegel vs. about.com images. In any event, everyone seems to agree the Commons image is not accurate. The question then, is between the about.com and the Siegel image. I believe these are both images of the same stamp. The Wikipedia article describes the stamp as "dirty and heavily postmarked on the upper left hand side," which would suggest that the about.com image is more accurate, since the Siegel image is neither "dirty" nor "heavily postmarked". That would also imply that the Siegel image has been cleaned and the ship "improved" (although pre-Photoshop given its 1980 provenance - in fact it dates from at least 1975 as it also appears in Lidman's Treasury of Stamps, Harry Abrams, NY (1975), fig. 195). Nevertheless, I have yet to find definitive proof of this. Ecphora (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I have looked through the various images shown in the about.com stamp "Famous Rarities" gallery: [2]]. Many of them appear to be unreliable. The colors shown are "off" (such as both Post Office Mauritius stamps). Also, several of them have large cloudy overlays / murky areas (such as the 2 cent Cotton Reel and the Hawaiian Missionary) similar to that found on Image:British Guiana 1856 1c magenta stamp.jpg which can't be true to the originals.Fconaway (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it suprising that it's so difficult to locate a definitive image of the most famous stamp in the world? Ecphora (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too surprising - it hasn't been on display since the dawn of the personal computer age. This might be a case where it would be worthwhile to hunt down a good photo taken between 1970 and 1980 and scan it. A la Scott's practice with its old woodcuts, people might also be reluctant to allow copies of their hi-res photographs, for fear of forgery. Stan (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Siegel image, as I noted above, is found in a 1975 book, but is suspect because (1) the genuine stamp has been described as "dirty" and "heavily postmarked" and (2) the Siegel image shows much less of the cancellation than the about.com image (which apparently derives from the Harris Co.), so it must have been cleaned up. Ecphora (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currency symbol

I think the cent sign is inappropriate here, since it is usually used to describe the cents of the USD, not GBP pence (p) or pence (d). I made that change and then got reverted by someone called "ww2censor", who I disagree with, but don't want to incite a revert war with. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries use/d cents in their currencies which are not the USD. Please take a worldview, taking a US-centric view is narrow minded and wrong. Show a verifiable source for the use of the "d" penny and I will be happy to work on this with you, but the stamp itself uses the word "CENT". Do you dispute that fact? No one has disputed this for the last 5 years and neither has anyone from the Philately WikiProject. ww2censor (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many British Guiana stamps used a number with a small "c" to indicate "cent" (e.g., Scott cat nos 152-201, J1-J4.), but apparently did not use the "¢" with the line. A quick check indicates that US stamps used the ¢ from about 1933 through about 1957-8 and thereafter switched to the "c" without a line, which in turn was dropped about 1985. Who knew there was a deliberate pattern here? Anyway, since British Guiana never used the ¢ form, perhaps it should be changed to "c". Ecphora (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can go with that. ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it on discovery that British Guiana at the time used a "Dollars" (With "Cents", according to the page on it). I was expecting it to be denominated in £sd, per British practice of the time, which would have resulted in "d." being appropriate. Finally, since this has been resolved, I would note that your initial reply came across as being unnecessarily hostile. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guyanese dollar should have the answer, but doesn't seem to mention a preferred abbreviation (nor any of the related West Indies currency articles I looked at). Stan (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sotheby's catalog - May 2014

A detailed history of this stamp has just been published online and offline by Sotheby's, the auction firm. Notwithstanding their financial stake in selling the stamp, the work can be considered highly authoritative and has contributions from numerous respected sources including the Collectors Club of New York. Someone who is more adept than me at editing should review and take some of this info into the article: http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2014/magenta-n09154.html

Sotheby's June 2014 sale price

Aftre the auction Sotherby's screwed up by only adding their normal 10% buyer premium for $1m+ when they should ahve added the 20% buyers premium for this sale which made the final price $9.4m. as now stated. This result was the original but wrong final price but has now been corrected. Here is the offical news statement. ww2censor (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about what caused that. Do we have a source about this discrepancy? They don't seem to address it in the press release. For that matter, Sotheby's seems to be omitting the hammer price from all their information also — or have I just not found the right document? --Closeapple (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the link above to an image of the original wrong final price but this YouTube video has the auctioneer confirming the price. Several other videos are available too but this one is from a stampboards member and there has been a very detailed discussion on the stampboards about the whole auction. It's a long thread but you might like to start about here: http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=52624&start=440 though some of the previous posts in the discussion are interesting too. There is even a video of the auction. BTW, I think the weight comparison is just silly and a waste of time to even discuss. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this stamp so interesting to collectors?

I see that this is a one-of-a-kind stamp, but is that all that makes the stamp so expensive? What factors make this stamp so interesting to collectors? This article could explain better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually not that many one-of-a-kind stamps, even fewer that are "normal" and not errors (a la Treskilling Yellow), and even fewer that are "obviously" different, vs distinct due to paper type or microscopic design details. On top of that, it is a Commonwealth-area stamp, and historically a bunch of the deep-pockets collectors have been biased towards that area. This is my bit of analysis, although I suspect a little digging around could find someone more authoritative saying the same thing. Stan (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buying it puts you in the "Hall of Fame" of great collectors (or very rich people) who have owned the stamp. In that way it is like the vast prices paid for great works of art which are trading pieces in a game played by the wealthy. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While there are several points:

Each time it has come up for sale it has been for a record price by a significant amount.
It has seldom been on display or even seen by collectors or the general public.
It is a one-of-a-kind.
It comes from the early days of stamps.
It was issued in an exotic place.
Found by a 12 year old allows people to imagine they could possibly find something similar themselves.
And it has been associated with a murder - that's always newsworthy.

ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the most famous stamp?

I would contend that the opening sentence of this article is false. "The British Guiana 1c magenta is regarded by many philatelists as the world's most famous stamp." In the context of philately (the context of the cite for "famous"), this is indeed the most famous stamp, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, and generally the most famous stamp is probably one widely in use, a Chinese, American or Indian definitive perhaps. By the simple expedient of a word such as "rare" or "collectable", the opening sentence becomes true. I have provided a source that this stamp is indeed rare. In fact the BBC source also describes it as famous --Mongreilf (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is correct. Sotheby's catalog, where the stamp was recently sold, is titled "The British Guiana: the World's Most Famous Stamp," Auction date June 17, 2014 (New York). You acknowledge that "this is indeed the most famous stamp." This is an article about the 1c majenta stamp, not about stamps in general, and it is perfectly appropriateto say that many (if not most) philatelists consider it as the most famous stamp. In fact, after selling for nearly $10 million, the general public probably views it as the world's most famous stamp. Ecphora (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged it in a particular context. Please be reasonable and state that context when you quote me.

Anyway, before we establish references, am I to believe you think more people know about this stamp than any other stamp? Mongreilf (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many people knowing the existance of a particular stamp does not make it famous. That statistic probably goes to some low value domestic letter rate stamp that was, or still is, being used for a long period of time in one of the countries you mention or maybe even in the Soviet Union, but that still would not make it a famous stamp. ww2censor (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. "Famous" means having fame. The definition of "famous" (taken from dictionary.com) is "having a widespread reputation, usually of a favorable nature; renowned; celebrated." That fits this stamp very well. The current definitive US postage stamp (whatever that is) may be common and seen by many, but that does not make it "famous," anymore than a dollar bill or the number five is "famous." Ecphora (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp is no longer displayed at National Postal Museum in DC—unknown where it’s at

I took a tour today of the National postal museum with a docent. The display for the Magenta is there, but there is a quickly posted temporary sign saying the item is removed. I asked the docent and he said he just learned this week that the item was removed, and he has no idea where it is or if the donor will continue to display it there. He suspects it may go to London. I have no sources for this except the museum employee! Just saying it’s not there. Chris.ridgeway (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claim needs citation

The statement that the drop in price at auction from 2014 to 2021 is due to Weitzman signing the back sounds like conjecture/editorializing and unless supported by some reliable citation or quote from an observer connected to the sale, should be deleted. Practically all past owners signed the stamp as well (albeit in more modest fashion) and it never dropped in price before. There are many other possible causes for a drop in price, including that Weitzman simply overbid in 2014. Tulliux (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any such claim, so have removed it and added citations to the price in the lede and the public display by SG that I moved to the more appropriate public display section. ww2censor (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the most expensive thing by weight?

I recently watched a video on this stamp claiming it was the most expensive thing by weight. Can anyone find a reliable source? סשס Grimmchild 08:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]