An Inevitable "Decline Opinion"?

Looking through the PFSearch, one does occasionally encounter declined opinions rather than positive or negative opinions. They are comparatively few and far between, but they are out there.

It got me thinking about the piece below. I purchased this as a fake and as a discussion piece a few months back, but the more I think about it, the more I think one could debate its merits... but ultimately, in my opinion we can never know what it actually is.

When I say that I bought this as a fake, that probably is not the correct wording, rather I did not buy it as a true R53a as both the seller and I agreed that on its face it is too doubtful. I do not think it is a philatelic creation, but rather the result of an overly meticulous clerk.

I have seen closely-cut stamps on documents, and I have also seen stamps that have been lifted, trimmed, and replaced. I believe this to be the former rather than the latter.

The biggest argument against its being an actual R53a is the miniscule margins. Were this stamp not on document, there would be no discussion whatsoever. This stamp on its own absolutely screams "TRIMMED!"

There are, however, aspects of the document that run counter to that conclusion:

1. The date, color, and impression are all correct for it being an R53a.

2. The handwriting and initials match that of the document (meaning it's not a stamp taken from elsewhere and added to the document).

3. Even though you cannot see it in this particular image, the top loop of the third initial *DOES* tie to the document, if only slightly. The ink bleeds onto the document itself.

4. I can find no evidence that the stamp has been lifted and replaced (i.e., lifted, trimmed, and replaced).

So is that enough to call it an R53a? I would speculate the answer is no. My guess is that if I submitted this for expertization it would come back with "we decline opinion".

Thinking about the processes of the era though, I'm trying to come up with an argument as to why a clerk, presumably focused on the task at hand, would have taken the time to trim down a perforated or part perforated stamp rather than using the perforations, which would have been undoubtedly faster... I doubt that anyone would have been interested in creating philatelic fakes at the time.

So what would you call it?

(There is a link to a higher resolution image below the picture.)



http://www.revenue-collector.com/zoomify/2593.jpg

I'm inclined to agree that you'd likely get a "decline" if you sent if for expertizing.

However, I'd call it an imperf for the very reason you cite in your post -- why would someone who was presumably busy take the time to trim off all of the perfs during a period when they would have no inkling of the future difference in value?

Alas, the date color, and impression are also correct for a part perf, which is probably what this started out as.
In many cases the clerks that added the stamps were young girls (even today women tend to get paid less than men, and in those days it was a LOT less), and they had to work quickly so cutting the stamps apart with a scissors, knife, or straight edge was not all that unusual. They would probably cut down all the stamps they had as soon as they got them so that they were ready to use, and the imperf margins of a part perf would have to be cut anyway, and the available space on a document was often small.
Plus the stamp's only purpose was to prove that the tax had been paid, and the tax was paid the minute the stamps were purchased. No one really cared whether they looked good or not.
At the bottom of the document there is some offset from the stamp where the document was folded and the acidic qualities of the ink and paper created a faint "ghost image", a frequent occurrence on old documents. Careful viewing under UV might be interesting and might show the actual shape of the stamp.
As for an opinion, who knows. For sure it cannot get a genuine imperf opinion.

Although I do not think that this was a deliberate philatelic fake, it is a mistake to think that no one was interested in creating philatelic fakes even in that time period. I have read contemporary accounts of fakery in philatelic journals even from the 1860's and 1870's. Conning collectors is an old and (dis)honorable profession.

Personally, I don't think the third loop "ties" it to the document,
close, but no.

As I mentioned above, you cannot tell from the images. Under a loupe though, it does in fact tie.

Any evidence of ink UNDER the stamp?

That's the line I was on BeeSee,
being the etermnal cynic, I find it easy
for someone to add a blink of ink to do some "tieing"

The less sophisticated forgers do that with CDS's
they whack a stamp on a cover, then add a smudge of black stuff
to continue the ring of the CDS.

I personally believe that it's authentic. I know my opinion means next to nothing on here, but I DO see where it's tied to the document and it was done in a time where it would not have been even thought of as being a manufactured philatelic treasure. It's importance was far more valuable as the proof of the paid taxes. Just my near worthless opinion but I think it's a beautiful document regardless.

ILS, just to clarify, it well may be, and for the members sake
I really hope it is genuine, but I think it healthy to observe all opinions
esp the Devil's advocacy to arrive at a balanced view.
Your opinion, as everyone's, does matter.
It gives us opportunity to reflect on the possibilities.

I'm intrigued by this new (to me!) concept of "Declined Opinions". How are these viewed by the those in the know? Is the stamp left hanging in a philatelic no-mans-land?
Here in Scotland, we have 3 possible verdicts in a criminal trial - Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Proven. The Declined Opinion reminds me of the Not Proven verdict! Neither exonerates nor condemns.
Would you still purchase a stamp with a declined opinion? Under what circumstances?

Realistically, a declined opinion is the same as a negative opinion when purchasing an item. It's the expertizer's way of saying "we don't know" or "we can't tell for sure".

This stamp is cut so closely that it is essentially "cut to shape". Realistically it would be impossible to know whether it started out as an imperf or a part perf, however the imperf is VERY scarce (assuming that it actually exists, which some very knowledgeable people have serious doubts about)and the part perf is pretty common (about $10 cat). Although this stamp also exists perforated (also common), it is very unlikely to have been one originally due to the shade, impression and time period of use. On an item like this the burden of proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, a "no opinion" is the best one could hope for, unless the ghost image proved that the stamp had perforations at one time, in which case it would be a fake.