Scott # 491 : I Find (This) Hard To Believe... Opinions?

[Probably] clueless seller, and a [definitely] clueless buyer.
The classic ebay hook up!

Its a #492

Al... yup... just checked my Armstrong... definitely Ty III, "crinkled lip" (and other minor details)

BTW... I'm still intrigued by this suspected 423B posted recently...

http://dd-designs.co/dnloads/423B.jpg

Doesn't look perf'ed. 12x10 to me. Looks more like 11x11.

Really? I disagree. The top, bottom and sides all have 12 perfs even though the sides are longer which indicates perf. 12x10. It looks good to me!
Isn't that a 425d? or am I missing something?

Looks like a 11x10 to me. The perf tips look to wide to be perf 12. If they are genuine, which they very possibly are not. Especially if it turns out to be perf 12.

For the suspected 423B I say it is 11 top and bottom and 10 on both sides. A quick and dirty rule without using a gauge irregardless of image size is the number of perfs within the printed area of a stamp. The perfs within the shorter printed area will give you the number of perfs of a single perf stamp. In other words a 10 perf will always have at least 10 complete perfs but never 11. An 11 perf will have at least 11 perfs but never 12. Perfs of the longer side of a stamp are a bit more difficult but generally there is one more perf than on the shorter side. You must count only perfs WITHIN the printed area and NOT the number of perfs beyond the printed area. Also count only complete perfs and not partial perfs.

In the case of this stamp there are 11 perfs on the longer vertical sides which makes it a perf 10 on the sides. If it were a perf 11 x 11 there would be 11 top and bottom and 12 on both sides. This is not 100% foolproof but I have found it to be pretty accurate in the greater number of stamps I have checked online without a gauge before buying the stamp..

perf 12x10 423B , possibly faked, but this is what 423B looks like.
http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

and, btw, it is NOT the number of perfs in the PRINTED area, but rather the number of perfs on TOP of a normally sized stamp [not jumbo]. The side perfs are harder to count.

In my experience most misidentified 491's are 454's

chasa, the accurate number of perfs is determined by the number of perfs per 2cm. It just so happens that the printed area of W/F issues is approximately 2 cm on the shorter side. This also works with other similar sized issues. My "quick and dirty rule", is taking advantage of the approximate 2cm length of the printed area. Counting all of the perfs on the stamp will in no way give a correct number of perfs. Counting the perfs within the printed area will give a fairly accurate (not an authoritative) perf number. My "rule" is helpful on stamps images that are smaller, equal to, or larger than actual size of a stamp.

no comment