Sometimes What Looks Like A Deal Is Not!

I know it's tough, but when being swayed by how great a "deal" something is, you need to take a step back, a few deep breaths, and look over the whole item from top to bottom.

The ebay link below is a prime example. People are so enamored with the idea of getting a $250 stamp for $25, that they're completely missing the fact that they're paying $25 for a 50-cent stamp... and a damaged one at that.

There's no way this is a legit R3b, at least not that any reputable dealer would ever touch with a 10-foot pole. That bottom margin is so close and so irregular, that I'd bet my next paycheck it's a trimmed R3c.

I would speculate that more than 80% of all imperf and part-perf 1st-issue revenues with catalog values above $50 that are offered on ebay and BidStart are trimmed fakes.

Do your due diligence before jumping at the "deal of a lifetime" (I speak from this firsthand; I've made this mistake more times than I care to admit...)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Scott-R3b-1...em588fbb4d24

-Dan

You can add my paycheck to yours on that one!

And a 3rd! I'm no expert but that's a terrible trim-job at that! lol

As a new collector it is frustrating to see dealers on ebay who have a perfect feedback score, and have good material most of the time sneak in stamps like this.

I have a question though, for every jumbo margin superb stamp out there isn't there the stamp or stamps that was next to it that suffers from having close or no margins?

From looking at examples of multiples there doesn't seem to be much space between them, maybe 5 millimeters.

Yes, by definition that is the case. Just because a stamp "could be" a part perf or imperf, you cannot give it the benefit of the doubt. The stamp must be able to stand on its own merits. Undoubtedly there are thousands of genuine imperfs and part perfs out there that can never be verified as such simply because they wound up on the short side of the cut.

But since trimming is so prevalent there is no other way.

If you really want to see some of the most EGREGIOUS fakes out there, go to ebay and BidStart and pull up the listings from seller "knarlystuff". He has listed the same horrific fakes over and over and over for years. Some of them are absolutely laughable. This isn't someone who got a collection and is unloading material he's unfamiliar with; this is someone creating fakes on a regular basis in an attempt to deceive.

ebay user mochastamps is another one, although he no longer lists lists 1st-issue revenues as frequently as he used to.

Sadly, national revenue dealer Michael Aldrich has entirely too many faked imperfs and part perfs in his inventory; far more than you will EVER find from Eric, Richard, Stanley Piller, or Frank Bachenheimer. I have returned items to Aldrich, informing them that they definitively are fakes (i.e., you can see the perf remnants under magnification) only to see the items relisted by him still as genuine items. I no longer buy from Aldrich nearly as frequently as I used to.

I sent him a polite message and he replied to me in kind and then removed the listing. Offering a fair assessment is often enough to convince a seller to remove his listing. Even if he removed it because he knows he was caught red-handed, it was worth the exercise. Today, we saved a collector from making a mistake!

Brian

I guess getting a feel for the paper type of true imperfs is the best way to tell if there's any doubt of it's authenticity.
At first when I saw a close cut stamp I'd think "well maybe it was just cut that way" but now I'm just staying away from them.
I'd rather have an empty spot to fill than one with a stamp that bugs me.

I have a couple I'm not 100% convinced but the paper seems right, one day I'll find ones with large margins and be sure they're legit.......unless they've had margins added!

I've ordered from Michael Aldrich and yes looking through his stock I've seen some that just make me stop and think "really" ?

Good job on getting the seller to remove the stamp Rileysan!

This is one of the reasons that multiples and on-document uses are so sought after.

I'd actually like to buy some on document revenues in the near future. This is good stuff to know right here. Thank you.

I have an a few occasions posted warnings about fake Part Perf's and Imperf's. I strongly suggest that if you are fairly new or even not so new but just unsure about them look for those posts. I give a few basic rules that can save you from making a bad trade or purchase! If your still in doubt post a pic or scan. I know I will be happy to offer my opinion and I'm sure Dan will be happy to as well.

I'll take you up on your offer for an opinion on these two; the first one is a rough R64,



Next up is a R42, the right and bottom margins look good, the left is crooked and the top is right in there.



Thank you taking the time to check these out

The standard measurement of 2mm+ on 3 sides is a good rule. Any with 3-4mm margins are most likely legitimate.

The R64 makes me a little nervous. Top right next to "nts" looks like 2 cut pref's. I would measure the largest margin points. Top and bottom look a little close for my tastes. 1st guess I would say doubtfull.
I would need to measure the 42 as well. The cut on the 42 looks to wavey to me on top and right for true comfort.

Need bigger pics to truly make an educated guess, but with the understanding that it's based solely on these pics and that closeup scrutiny is required, I'll go the opposite direction and say these both are potentially good.

First the R64. The date is correct. Look at the total width left-to-right at the bottom. Also the cut at the right is almost TOO jagged to be the result of intentional trimming. Someone trimming off perfs would not have gone so off the mark as to hit the design; he would have been more careful. This is more likely a clerk in a hurry. Revstampman is correct though: examine the upper-right third of the stamp to see if there is any regularity to those indentations.

Now the R42. I actually like this one. I think the waviness in the cuts that revstamp is seeing are in fact digital artifacts from a large image being resized down to a small size. I've encountered this myself when resizing images... it makes you do a doubletake and look back at the full-sized image to be sure. Again, the date is right and the widest point left-to-right is easily sufficient. The top-to-bottom margins are less of a concern in this case, because R42b is not listed as ever being available imperforate horizontally, so if perfs would have been trimmed off, it would be on the sides.

Two people. Two opinions. Now we just need a tiebreaker.

P.S. I would say that 600dpi scans are the absolute MINIMUM for beginning to ascertain the edges of a stamp; ideally 800dpi or 1200 dpi would be used. Even then the stamps should be examined in hand under 10x and 20x (or 30x) magnification, both front and back. Sometimes perf remnants are more evident from sone side than the other. I actually prefer looking at the back of the stamp, because the design/cancel are not a distraction to the eye.

If I see something possible under 10x or 20x, and can't be sure either way, then I trot out the stereo microscope...

Revenue collector, what is a stereo microscope?

Two eyes rather than one eye..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_microscope

This is why I will not buy a Part Perf or Imperf from a scan unless it has very large margins, or it's from a good Rev. dealer. Yes, the dates are correct. Margins apear to be close to acceptable as full width at the bottom of the 42. But without it in hand I wouldn't jump on it.
Based on the scan on the 64 I personally wouldn't touch it. That top right corner bothers me. Based on the scan those indents look to regular and the depth looks to be the same.
I prefer caution, early on I ended up with my fair share of fakes. as the saying goes "once bitten, twice shy."