Good Things Come To Those Who Wait...

I don't know the behind-the-scenes goings on or what transpired with whom, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I'll admit that I'm somewhat puzzled by the numbers.

One of the holes I still needed to fill in my1st-3rd series revenue collection is R150a, the high denomination ($20) of the third issue, vermillion error of color. I've seen quite a few here and there but none that struck my fancy until this one appeared on ebay last year (or it might have been Jan/Feb of this year):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/R150a-VERMI...370334696781

Gorgeous jumbo margins; the largest I've seen on the type. It has a blunted perf at upper left, but no major detractions that I could see.

Of course there are a few problems in play here:

1.  It's priced at $1,500 against a catalog value of $1,000. It's nice, but not that nice (to my wallet anyway)... still, I'd have happily offered $800-900 for it, but

2. It's offered by a seller I won't buy from (and who has blacklisted me anyway, so it's a moot point).

I bookmarked it, just because it has wonderful eye appeal. I think the steep asking price scared people off from making offers... and the price was never subsequently lowered... until:

Fast forward to July and I see what appears to be this exact stamp being offered in the August Harmer-Schau auction, except now it has a PSAG cert stating that there is a small filled-in pinhole at the bottom of the 7 (presumably acid erosion). No other faults listed. It also showed as having a very low opening bid.

Well, I sat hunched over the computer at 2am central time on a Saturday morning, when the revenues finally came up for bids (Holy Horrific Scheduling, Batman!), and waited to see what the bidding would be like. There was some bidding on the revenue lots, but nothing earth shattering. The lot opened at $250, there were a couple of bids, and I won the stamp for $350 ($400 net after BP).

That's a far cry from what I was willing to pay for the stamp, let alone the original asking price.

I don't get it. Why, rather than lowering the asking price on ebay to something more reasonable (I'm guessing that if it had been offered at a $900 or $1,000 BIN it would have at least garnered offers of $600-800), would you consign the piece to one of the smaller auction houses with effectively no reserve and a time slot that was in the middle of the night?

I figure after the house took their cut, the consigner probably netted only $300 or so, which almost has to be a break-even at best, and probably $400-600 less than what he could have gotten in a direct sale.

Of course the stamp is still an active listing on ebay, so it's quite possible it was never meant to be consigned to begin with. Stranger errors have happened with this seller.

Regardless of the route the stamp took, I'm quite pleased with the end result (even under high magnification I can't actually see the fill-in work claimed by the cert)... and the price.

My pictures of the stamp and cert:

I have a desire to put in an offer of $1,000 just to yank Langs chain.

The cert shows 1871
I would have read that as 1872

I agree. It really doesn't matter much, as it is clearly the stamp in question. I guess manuscript-cancel reading is a lost art. ;)

Is the stamp by definition in the possession of H-S, and not WL? Can you still be "sorry, not available"-ed on this? (I assume with a holiday-weekend purchase, it is not already in your hands, and probably hasn't even shipped yet.)

It's already in my hands. It arrived yesterday, hence my being able to provide the scans above. I deliberately did not say anything publicly until I had the stamp in my possession, thinking there might be shenanigans...

lol... Dan... you are funny...

I agree with Rod given that the stamp was issued in 1872.

These examples are rich in iconography,
would make a nice study, just in some of the intricate designs.
the factory, the buildings, the man-o-war etc.
Washington's face is unusually light?

Has thought been given to the possiabilty that the same person signed two $20 R150a's on the same day?????

If you compare my picture with the one in the URL, it is identical, down to the exact positioning of the manuscript cancel, and the short perf at upper left. It's the same stamp.




If you examine enough 2nd issue and 3rd issue (and 1st issue Proprietaries), you will see a wide range of portrait impressions, from bold to faint. You'll also see a range of positioning of the portrait with respect to the frame, ala the U.S. Scott #C3 "fast plane" and "grounded plane" varieties.

Dan why don't you get the certification rectified to fix the description error?

I would agree that there are most likely instances where a signer initialed and dated multiple revenue stamps at one sitting.
However, there are at least three obvious observations that this is the same stamp:

1. The signature and date. The size, pressure differences (resulting in wide of stoke and amount of ink) and location placement on the stamp are identical. To purposely try to duplicate on two different stamps is extremely difficult if not impossible. To do so without meaning to do so is extremely improbable.

2. The blue threads in the stamp are identical in both images. These threads are dispursed randomly, so to have two stamps with the EXACT random dispersement is also extremely improbable.

3. The perforations are identical on both stamps.

Conclusion - yep! Both images are of the same stamp.

All third issue stamps except the 2 cent (Nov. 4, 1871) and 5 cent (Dec. 11, 1871) values had to be used in 1872. All other values were issued early in 1872 and the tax laws requiring all values except the 2 cent were repealed Oct. 1, 1872. Second issue stamps continued to be used for any values not reissued with the changed colors, and the same plates were used for both the second and third issues.

Of course the issue dates do not preclude backdating. I have several 2nd issue and 3rd issue revenues with cancel dates in the 1860s.

With regard to the portrait being light, it should be remembered that the reason these stamps were issued as bi-colored stamps was largely to prevent cleaning and reuse (also counterfeiting). To that end both inks are fugitive, one dissolves in acids and the other in alkali so that any attempt at cleaning would remove or discolor the inks. This also means that 140 years later the portraits have probably faded somewhat. This one is about average. This is good to remember when viewing inverted centers, if they are very strongly and sharply printed an alarm bell should go off, especially for the more expensive varieties.

The paper was also known as "Willcox Chameleon Paper" and would change to a pink color if certain chemicals came in contact with it. That is why pink examples are sometimes found. As always, the government took any attempt at evading the payment of it's tax monies seriously.