Would You Call This "Junk"?

Do I ever buy "junk" on ebay? You tell me.

This item was listed as a 166. It looked attractive to me, especially with the red "paid" cancel, so I decided to go for it, and got it at $125. But I had not given it due diligence prior to bidding.




As soon as I looked at it after it arrived, something was wrong. Although it still bore a hinge remnant, the paper was too stiff and white, and the printing was not engraving. Close examination with a hand lens revealed what I show in these scans. The fine grainy appearance of the paper is not an artifact of the scanner, it is visible on the stamp. Those are pixels from an image that was printed by a modern screen method of some kind. The "stamp" is a modern reproduction; a picture of a stamp.





The seller, so I have been told (and I believe it), is a couple who had inherited a collection from a deceased relative. They do not collect, and do not know the material. As soon as I had informed them of the bogus item, they issued an immediate refund even before I had returned the "stamp." Since I have been paid back the stamp is on the way back to them. I have advised them to join this list and learn something about what they are having such trouble trying to sell. We shall see.

Considering what some of Earee's Album Weeds and Sperati's forgeries bring today, I wonder if this is a piece of junk, or a missed opportunity.

What do you think?

cancel is all wrong too

I like the looks of it too but you know your stuff as well as have it in hand so it would be hard for me or most anyone to exact an ID.
[s]Maybe a special printing that someone doctored? a perforated proof with bogus paid magenta cancel or outright fake/forgery (Seperati perhaps?) if you decide it is a fake [YOU ALREADY FIGURED OUT IT WAS BOGUS [Sorry, my bad it's too early for me yet] consider submitting to to the A.P.S reference library or your own. At least you got your money back and offered them the opportunity to educate themselves. IMO you handled it the right way. if you hate it that much just send it to me for proper disposal! LOL

I'd do that, Jeff, if I weren't already obliged to send it back to the seller. However, in a few days some items I recently purchased will arrive and I will post images here for you to look at. You in particular will find them of interest, since you and a few others here influenced the decision to buy. I will explain that at the time.

Here is one now, a dog purchased in a weaker moment:




Not much to look at as a stamp. But this one is still on piece:



I bought it because I have neglected #1 & 2. Until recently I only had a poorly cancelled, two margin example of #1, with a hole in it. At least this one has four margins, but the stamp looks pretty sorry.

Should we call this one a piece of junk?

On piece with a railroad cancel maybe it is redeemed a little?
New/North Haven & Springfield R.R. (Needs to be checked)
Nice early train reference with #1 for just under $200 hammer.

you should check out the article on the printings of the 5c 1847 in Chronicle #237. Look for it online at the USPCS website:
http://www.uspcs.org/resource-cente...b-chronicle/

It looks as though this may be a third printing, worn plate example. Something that might add to your description of the stamp and why it's not junk.
C.

Thanks for the heads-up on the Chronicle article, Chip. I think you are right about this as an example from the third printing, worn plate variety in particular. The muddy brown shade is also consistent with that. That Saadi says examples of the third printing are "hard to find" is a mixed blessing, I guess, since one reason for their scarcity is that they were tossed by earlier collectors as inferior. And that they are. Oh well, it helps keep the price down.

It's a good note to have.

One man's junk is another man's etc...

Let's have a good look at this cover. It's a genuine Penny Black nicely tied by a red Maltese Cross with a crisp red Skipton cds on the front. Technically it's an outer that's been folded over so the original correspondence is still inside. It has been folded in half well clear of the stamp, but still what you'd call a clean cover.

Looking at the stamp, though, we notice that it's a NO-MARGIN copy, nothing, nada, zit, on the page of "Stamp Condition", this is a footnote to page 2. Space-fillers would look down on it. No one else at the stamp club wanted it, I don't collect GB, the closest I get is a Polish stamp commemorating Rowland Hill but for a reasonable $30 it was mine & I proudly own an example of the first postage stamp on cover.



This also comes in useful with the nay-sayers when I mention that I collect Poland & they go 'Poland eh?' & then they go on about their Penny Blacks & I retort ' Oh yes, have one on cover, nice Skipton cds' - shuts them up every time..

Could it have been trimmed to fit an old cancel remnant still on cover after the original was removed? EG: added to cover? I'm certainly not trying to be rude or in anyway dis respectful because it very well just could have been a postmaster or clerk that was in a hurry too so I guess that's for you to decide ultimately. Respectfully -Jeff

I too had wondered if the stamp was added so I checked it under a microscope & it looks good to me. The shade of the red maltese cross is identical on both stamp & cover. The stamp has 'popped' off along the edges & there's no traces of ink on the cover under the stamp, the pattern of the ink on the stamp matches the bits that are on cover. I see no water remnants on the other side to suggest that a previous stamp has been removed.

added corner, but not a bogus stamp.