To Bill Weiss... do you possibly have a backscan of the 164... for the last 10 years since hearing about it, I've always had a desire to see what it looked like...
Perhaps it should say "no opinion on whether it is unused or used due to the missing left margin" (but I wouldn't go as far as some of the others in suggesting it is not geniune, since they did note all of the alterations - alterations that were done to improve the appearance, but not to make it mimic some other Scott number).
"To Bill Weiss... do you possibly have a backscan of the 164... for the last 10 years since hearing about it, I've always had a desire to see what it looked like..."
This thread is about the unused Scott #142, so are you asking about a #142 or do you really mean #164?
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited. Privacy Policy / Terms of UseAdvertise Here
Posted 06/24/2014 12:36 am
