Stamp Worth 500.00?

So far zero people think so.

yeah, that is true..

Wow! That's way above catalog price and not even well centered. I'd never pay that...

are you being sarcastic?

A OG mint 120 in average condition books out at $1900.00 in the fall scotts stamp values.

Probably a better chance of selling that stamp if there was a professional cert on it.

I agree...

Sorry about that stampvirgin, I have next to my computer a paperback of the 2011 Blackbook Guide to US Stamps. I find it a small and quick reference to just look up Scott #'s as everyone laments that the book contains useless prices ... overinflated to say the least.

HOWEVER, for the #120, that Blackbook shows values at $425 unused; $475 used. I then went to my Scott Specialized and see what you mean about the numbers being up there in the thousands for that issue. Yet another error to that Blackbook Price Guide, I guess.

Anyway, even knowing the 2011 Scott value, it's not necessarily my favorite stamp, so even if I could afford it, I doubt I'd pay the asking price.

Just some observations, though: While I'm no professional by any means on these classic stamps, based on the link you provided, I would question the back of the stamp for a number of reasons: (1) The grill looks too heavy; (2) The claim is that #121 is offset on the back, but I don't believe it, as the word "of" doesn't appear on the #121; (3) It is purported to be OG, but it is hard to tell just how much original gum may remain, if it is indeed original; and (4) There appears to be a crease on the upper part of the stamp...and I previously mentioned that the face of the stamp shows poor centering.

Am I being too critical about it or is that classic issue one where serious collectors would bend on some of those points?

No bending. The stamp is wayyy off center. Assuming it is otherwise sound, it is a space filler at best. I don't collect space fillers, and dont recommend it. Spend good money on good stamps when you can afford it, if you are going after classics.

Point #2... it's not "of" it's ed backwards.. the impression is a mirror image.
the grill is the correct size for a "G" grill..
there is a crease..

even so. If I had a stamp with a CV of $9000.00 I would get a cert... for it in a heartbeat.

where is the blue color from the 121?

smauggie.. I know you look out for me.. I am not buying the stamp. "If it looks to good to be true"
maybe a space filler but a really expensive one.

For the stamp in question, the selling point is not the centering but the claim of an offset on the back. However, it is NOT a genuine offset. What happened was the stamp got stuck to a #121, and when they pulled it apart, some of the red ink came off of the #121 and stuck to the back of the #120, and some of the gum came off of the back of the #120 and stuck to the #121. If you saw the #121, you would see surface damage and gunk stuck to the face.

The claim of an "amazing" offset is not valid. The stamp is nothing more than average centering with damaged gum.



Yes, it is either a complete typo for both values, or perhaps one digit is missing from both catalog values.

and finally the master speaks....

latest scott stamp values..

in VG condition Unused NG - $825.00
Unused OG - $1900.00

I was tempted. but you folks have taught me that quality is better then quantity.

Sorry, SV, I missed reading your 2 posts above mine when I was typing my post. You correctly noted that the seller was hilighting the supposed "offset".



When sellers talk about an offset on the "backside", it is suppose to be a mirror image. I had to do a double take the first time I heard this term used in this manner by a seller. Basically, the claim to this term is that the ink was still wet when the next press sheet was printed and placed on top. So the ink transferred from the front of the still wet press sheet to the back of the next press sheet. Of course, this occurs BEFORE the stamp is gummed. So on a genuine backside offset, the offset printing is UNDERNEATH the gum and not ABOVE the gum. The offset printing will still be there even if the gum drops out or has been removed. On US stamps, this phenomenon will only happen on the older printing press/processes; a very rough division will be the conversion from wet to dry printing in the 1950s.

Be warned, the great majority of claimed backside offsets are NOT genuine (by my definition) -- they are nothing more than one stamp stuck on another and then pulled apart. They are quite easy to "manufacture" with far less damage than the stamp mentioned in this thread. These are nothing more than damaged stamps, and any seller attempting to market them as backside offset printing has either misunderstood/misused the term, or is simply fishing for fools.

Genuine backside offsets are not that common. I've run through a handful over the years. Personally, I would never pay extra for one. In fact, I used to consider them off-quality stamps, and only later accepted them as a type of EFO. But a rare premium item? Well, one man's junk is another man's treasure. Whatever makes the buyer happy, I guess.

But if you are into these backside offsets, make sure you are getting a genuine one (i.e., produced during the printing process) and not one resulting from improper storage!

Kim, thanks , when I said "the master speaks" I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being complementary.
I wasn't aware that offsets are before gumming..
something new to remember.
When I have questions about stamps, I always post here, because I know you folks won't steer me wrong.

Technically, if you look up some of the various definitions, the backside offset refers to the transfer of ink from the front of a stamp to the back of another stamp. It is a general definition.

However, I simply think it is silly and wrong/misleading to market an "offset" produced by improper storage. Would they market the stamp underneath as "gummed on the front"?

Just my opinion.