What's Your Opinion About This 5c Jefferson Davies Stamp?

I bought a lot and this stamp came in it. It looks too new for me and I think it could be a fake or a counterfeit. But I'm just not sure because it's the first Confederate that I have and I don't have anything to compare it with.

Looks good, but I don't collect the Confederate States. I do know that there are lots of fakes, but a lot of those are collectable as well. What ever is is, it has a nice right margin.

There are several people here who can confirm or deny the authenticity of this stamp, but if I were to make a bet, I would bet this was a reprint.

Brian

Brian is correct.

kevin504, is Rileysan correct that there are several people who can confirm or deny the authenticity of the stamp, or is he correct in that this stamp is a reprint?

Much of your writing is curt, which there is nothing wrong with. However, at least minor elaboration contributes to the knowlege base of the members.

I can go onto any forum discussing any topic and reply with Boolean logic answers such as "FALSE" when replying to a question of whether or not someone has taken too many laxatives. However, that doesn't help anyone identify when they have taken a sufficient dose to achieve what they desire.

Please don't take this the wrong way. You do seem to be very knowledgeable in many areas. I just wish to lighten you up a bit and perhaps prod you to provide some support for your arguments.

I'm glad to have every single person here that interacts on this forum. You included. You seem to have a knowledge of certain subjects that many of us do not have. I implore you to share a bit of it with us by elaborating on your conclusions.

What would entice you to lighten up a bit? A tickle? Me reducing my ramblings? I'll gladly bear you telling me to "shut the DUCK up" if it will lighten your heart.

Well, reprint sounds better than fake or counterfeit. But, if it's a reprint is it good or bad news?

So is he Kevin or is he Curt?!?

All joking aside, I appreciate Kevin's input even if he appears curt, terse, snippy, impatient, or Fred. I took his comment to mean that this stamp is a reprint.




We might be splitting hairs on the topic, but I see a distinction between reprint and a fake.

Although there are no markings indicating "reprint" or "facsimile" in this picture, the type and quality of the printing would lead an experienced collector to conclude this was a reprint/facsimile.

However, if someone were to make this stamp look old (soiled, faded, oxidized, etc) and add a cancellation to it, it could be labeled a forgery.

Brian

So, does it have a philatelic value or any value at all?

The real ones can be purchased from $10 - $20, so I'd say not much for philatelic value for reprints / Facsimilies.

This is a reptint - In 1954 the Franklin Institute found a complete typography plate for the five cent stamp. The Franklin Institute made reprints in blue and black. The design is identical to the originals. The ink and paper are different form the originals. The impression is very clear but it appears slightly flat and does not having the glazed appearance of the originals

Rileysan....Brian, thanks for the confidence vote!!
Or is it Curt???
Just kidding.

So, are you saying this stamp is one of those reprints?

I've stayed out of this thread because I'm no expert in Confederate issues, but if it turns out to be one of the Franklin Institute reprints of 1954, the interesting story surrounding it is documented here (particularly note pages 2 and 3):

http://www.jlkstamps.com/csa/archives/gibbons1.pdf

There is definitely a difference. A fake is printed to try and fool someone...usually to sell as if it were an original even though it is not. A crime is being committed (most of the time). A reprint is made for some other reason, like just for the joy of having/displaying it, or perhaps as an advertising novelty, etc. and no attempt is made to pass the reprint off as original.

Sometimes a reprint is sold as an original by someone who doesn't know any better. That doesn't make it a fake, it just shows the ignorance of the seller. In most cases that seller will make restitution when shown convincing proof of the stamp's non-originality. In most cases no crime is being committed. If a seller tries to sell the item as real after being shown that it is not real, I suppose a crime IS being committed.

All my own opinions.

Quick question. The stamp is hinged. Is it wise to soak it in water to remove it?

I loved that article! Thank you for sharing, WT1