What's Wrong With This Stamp?

...other than the obvious dead horse and top perf cutting into the design. A better question might be "what's right with it?"

I got a batch of ugly, higher value stamps I'd like to sell on ebay, and want to make sure I describe them correctly. Faults, reperfs, regummed, they seem to run the whole gamut.

I'm not sure what's going on with the back of this one. Are those tiny "hinges" tear repairs? Anything else you see that should be in the description?

Don't see any gum. Original gum= "OG", Re-gummed= "RG" or "Re-gummed", No Gum= "NG" or "MNG" (Mint No Gum). "PH"= Previously Hinged. If it has no gum, it was probably soaked. So it's up to you whether or not you want to list it as used. It looks like it has been hinged at least 5 times, so I wouldn't just say "hinged", I'd say "previously hinged".

A suggestion for an unused (irritatingly referred to as "Mint") listing might be...

The Link... US Scott #290 Mint, PH, Slight Thin, Re-perfed, Bright Appearance!
Inside description... "Trans Mississippi 10 cent Covered Wagon".

I wouldn't say anything about the condition. At best, the condition is "good" (grade 30) for the period. An "ugly" stamp will speak for itself. Keep it simple or describing all your stamps will take longer. Price depends on whether or not it has original gum, and if it's an auction, BIN (Buy It Now) or BINBO (Buy It Now or Best Offer), and the seller's greed level. Honest descriptions make a seller appear more responsible.

It looks like the tiny hinges are just hinges. I can't say I see a tear for sure. But that's not to say someone wouldn't repair a tear with one.

The bottom is re-perfed.

You will get plenty more suggestions. Maybe blend some together.


Good Luck
-IBFS

Looks like an original gum stamp to me. There probably is a couple tiny thins at middle left from hinge removal. The hinges were probably used to reinforce a multiple. I don't see any reperfing.

It's off center.

Thanks IBSF, that's a great title. Mine tend to be descriptive but boring. I'm definitely going with that.

I haven't seen a lot of re-perfs yet. What do you see that makes you think that? Uneven perfs on bottom left?

It does have original gum, just doesn't show well in this scan. I looked very closely and don't see any tears, I think Sinclair nailed it that this was once a multiple with separated perfs.



Thanks ILS, there were so many other issues I didn't even notice. You also inspired me to learn how to do the rolling on floor guy.

< Insert Glue Stick Joke Here >

Here is something I've posted before on re-perfing...



On the scan of the bottom of your stamp on the back, look at the 3 holes under the hinge at the left. Lets call the left one of the 3 holes number 1. Now count to the right (counting hole number 1), 12 holes. The remaining 8 holes is the area that I think has been most obviously tampered with for some reason.

On your particular stamp, look at the perf holes in the remaining 8 holes and how they match the "fake" perf holes in the illustration versus the "genuine" ones. You will see 2 or three in this area that match the holes in the "fake" part of the illustration.

The biggest thing I see tho is how the remaining 8 holes sit vertically compared to the first 12. You should be able to lay a straight edge along the top of the holes on each end of the edge of a stamp, and see the tops of the holes line up against the edge. They will never line up perfectly but they will be close. You will find that some of the holes in this area will be pretty far off the edge. Try this and see. Try it with some other stamps that look like they have good perfs and you will get the feel for it.

Sometimes it is hard to tell reperfs, but those 8 holes at the right jump out at me.

Sometimes too, if I suspect something wrong with the perfs on one edge of a stamp, I will stare at the opposite edge for a few seconds, then look back at the suspect edge. This helps me on the tough cases.

Hope this helps.


-IBFS


-IBFS

Thanks IBFS. I've read about fake and genuine perf cuts, but I can't always see it. I can see it easily on "fresh" stamps, but not on stamps like this that have "been around the block" a few times.

I put a straight edge on two sides with Gimp, and the bottom is definitely off. The scan is crooked, I need a better scan. When I have more time (ie not Thanksgiving day :) I'll pull out the stamp and rescan and put a straight edge on it.



Thanks for the laugh Kirk. I can't come up with any glue jokes. On a serious note, it was much harder to regum a stamp back in the hardship days. First, you had to find a dead horse... render it...

That "straight line" method does not always automatically mean that the stamp has been reperforated. Pins get bent and dull, wheels occasionally get loosened a bit, things did sometimes happen. Remember we are dealing with 115 years ago here, not modern methods. These may indeed be bad, but the only way to be sure is to examine them in person and look for the pressure ridges that are supposed to be there. I have seen full sheets from this general era (Columbians) with some pretty funky rows of perfs that were obviously genuine.

Thanks Revcollector, that's good to know. Looking at the front and counting from bottom left perfs 6 - 8 have a sort of small curve (the short perf exaggerates it). I've noticed this on other stamps from this era and wasn't sure if that meant it was a re-perf.

I'll grab the magnifying glass and look for the pressure ridges. I'm only 53, but I'm going in for right eye cataract surgery on Monday. I've been relying on my left "good eye", but that one's going downhill and the doc says that one is next if everything goes well. My hope is once the patch comes off I'll be able to see the fine details of my stamps again.

I thought the same way revcollector . With one exception the example of the pressure ridges above is a stamp from the 20th century which was issued in many different way ( printing , paper, etc. & created with modern process .)