US 142 Unused, APS Cert - What Makes This Legit?!?

I'm in a stir-the-pot mood today. Maybe it's the weather, or maybe it's the 3 hours sleep I got last night?!?

Anyways, some years ago, I received a mailer (catalogue) from a dealer I occasionally do business with and on the cover was an unused US 142 for sale for the bargain price of $85,000. Along with the stamp was an APS certificate stating the stamp as "Unused, genuine, left margin and perfs added, reperforated at right, regummed".






*blink*

Over the years, I have occasionally searched for this stamp online, and today I finally found mention of it on someone's blog ...

http://stamps19.blogspot.com/

Naturally, I have very strong opinions about the authenticity of this stamp, but what REALLY bugs me is that this modified stamp was certified as genuine by the APS.

What are your opinions? Should a modified stamp ever be certified as genuine? If so, what criteria do you use? Can a stamp be too far modified to call it genuine? Where do you draw the line before you simply say "I will not stake my reputation on this stamp by calling it genuine"?

Brian

That whole sentence, in my opinion, is hogwash. How can anything be genuine if it is reperfed, regummed, margins and perfs added? Just my two cents.

Peter

I guess the question is, what about it is genuine. Could it be that the ink/printing is genuine, the paper is genuine (even if the gum and perfs are not and more paper was added to the stamp). I think it's a great question Brian. What is meant by genuine? I thought 142s were violet/lavender. This one looks yellowish. Is it a color changeling?

I should have been more specific with my question! Even US collectors may not know that this stamp is not known to exist unused. There are no known copies ever appearing at auction, nor have there been any listed in any population reports.

The question I meant to ask was: How can this possibly be considered genuinely unused?

As for your questions:


We know that paper and printer are going to be the same between 142 and 153 so I think that the first thing to do is identify this as legitimately grilled. Once that is established, you have the real work to do - determining whether or not it is used/unused.

Personally, I would disqualify any and all stamps with added margins from consideration of being "unused", but that is just my opinion!

Brian

Ohh. Yeah. Right.

What indeed would make this genuine.

I don't know how they can really certify this as genuine to begin with as it's been doctored!

I THINK what they're saying is it's a genuine 142 that's not been cleaned of a cancel but has been re-gummed, re-perforated and margin added. Semantics...

I don't see the problem. Its not certified as genuine with no qualifications. The qualifications are made quite clear. Stamp restoration and repair, while not currently in vogue, seems a legitimate enterprise to me. Its generally accepted to restore and repair works of art, books, maps and other paper media, museum pieces, antiques and so on. One day it will be accepted again in philately.

I certainly agree with your point. However, for me the issue isn't the restoration, it's the addition of a margin and reperf that is the problem. Who's to say this stamp didn't originally have a wing margin with partial cancellation that, when cut off or reperfed, creates a stamp with no postmark! As unlikely as it seems, one has to consider the possibility ...

Yes, but from the cert, I think everyone knows the potential for that occurrence. The cert merely states the known condition of the stamp. Any further interpretation is up to the collector. What would the alternative phrasing be, keeping in mind the cert cannot proffer opinion or make assumptions, but merely state fact?

The point is that if one removed the added margin the stamp that is left is a genuine 142. Obviously it has been repaired to improve it's appearance, but as long as that is stated there is no fraud. Hopefully the price will also reflect the work that has been done. This type of repair is a fairly commonplace occurrence with scare or rare stamps, it has been happening for many decades. It's only a problem when it is done with intent to defraud.

A ton of 153 cheap cancels... go on a witch hunt for a 142...

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...153&_sacat=0

If it is a genuine used 142 then that's what it is. To be fair I'd really want to see a PF Cert on it but if it's genuine, it's genuine.

If the Mona Lisa was damaged in a fire and 10% of it was replaced, would it still be the Mona Lisa? Yup.

Previous 142 Discussion back in 2012...

https://goscf.com/t/23072

Suncoast 142, with PFC sold on ebay, April 13, 2014...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Scott-14...047675.l2557

This is an interesting discussion. I basically agree with a lot of what Brian says. I do not like seeing a stamp with a margin added being described as this stamp was for just the very reason Brian says - that it could have been in the original left margin that a cancel was present! But at the same time, the remaining "evidence" is what the expertizers found to be the (then) current state of the stamp - which was the way it was described on the cert. On one hand, the cert. is only supposed to factually describe the condition currently found. But I personally would have added some caveat. I currently do this with regummed stamps where the gum is so heavy that it could easily hide faults. I might say something like this "It appears to be sound, but heavy regumming may hide fault(s)".

On the #142 (which by the way, is the only reported "unused" example.....) I might have placed an asterisk or two before the description and at the bottom would have added;

"*** Because the left margin was added, it is possible a cancel was there originally, but the present state is that of an unused stamp."

I doubt that would make purists very happy, but I would probably sleep better at night.......