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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
The illustration shows a dove looking to its right, the viewer's left. This does not agree with most illustrations, which show the dove with the letter in its beak, head toward its left, the viewer's right.Fconaway (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some web sites that show Basel Dove images and I see that the top image here [1] shows the dove with the beak touching the left wing while ALL the images here [2] show only images in which the beak does not touch the left wing or nearly touch the right wing. Sandafayre, even if you don't like them as dealers, is more likely to be using the correct image, so you may well be right. In the meantime I will look at some of my other sources here. Have a look at this David Feldmanauction page that has an expert certificate which tends to prove your questioning of the current Wiki image. What are you actually looking at that makes you say this is not the correct image? ww2censor (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was comparing the illustrations found in our "External Links" and our "Reference" to Klasboe. I don't have any of these stamps, and have even less knowledge of them, but the illustration didn't "look right". The famousstamps.org site is unreliable: it has numerous errors. Feldman's auction lot is about as authoritative as anything we can find. I doubt that a die variety exists, but I don't know.Fconaway (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I will have a look at some of my sources and see what else I can find. If it is wrong we should update the image with an appropriate proper image. The Swiss Museum for Communications shows a nice block of 15 that is not like the Wiki image, so it really looks like we have the wrong image. TTFN ww2censor (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that one but dismissed it because if you look at it carefully you will see that the beak faces to the right, however there does seem to be some white enlarging of the left wing or back of the head but it definitely does not look identical to the wiki image. I will stick with you comments that the wiki image is inaccurate. Do you have access to a specialised Swiss stamp catalogue? ww2censor (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the Corinphila image solves the mystery - the description calls it a plate error "Haube auf Taube" or "cap on dove". Ideally, we should give the top place to a hi-res scan of a normal stamp, move this image down as error example, and grab a copy of the Corinphila scan for commons, for future reference. Stan (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, now that I look at the wiki image again, I see there is a beak facing right and touching the right wing as per the normal stamp, but there is a large white blob connecting the back of the head to the left wing, so, as Stan says, the wiki image is a plate error. I just found a vertical pair in the book Treasury of Stamps: 1,200 Rare and Beautiful Stamps in Color by David Lidman (1975) isbn=0-8109-0469-1. The image shows a normal and an error where there is a similar large white blob that is just touching the bottom left of the shield piece that comes over the dove's head. In another position, if it was a little lower, it could well make the plate error we see in the wiki image. Thanks Stan. ww2censor (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]