#834 Asking Your Opinions To Cert Or Not

disi and rev, I agree with you. I had already came to that same conclusion, because of this thread actually. My most recent post here was to show that the back is not pristine and to add some commentary for mattodd1.

Believe me I appreciate the candor and honesty. That's how I learn. This thread being a perfect example. Thanks!

Steve Crippe can ask any price he wants.... he'll never
sell that stamp at that price, and the cert isn't going
to be any help for him...

I'd buy the one below any day of the week and twice on
Sunday, and I doubt the hammer will even see $100.00 ...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-834-MNH-...em3a9c617a3a

And the 834 in this set as well..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/U-S-stamps-...em20f108cb07

Look at the available list... there's gems here that will
likely either go unsold or sniped at the end for $30/$35...

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...&_sacat=3461

Certing *any* 834 is illogical...

The first one has a fault clearly visible from the back. Once you know where it is you can see it on the face as well, so the description is incorrect. To me that is a $10-$15 stamp tops.

Steve sold a Scott 834 for $375 (graded 98) and another for $750 (graded 98J) in 2014 (and yes, those are sales, not asking prices.) There's no way he gets those prices WITHOUT a cert... If you know an 834 is going to grade 98 or higher, it's a "no-brainer" to certify. BTW, Scott 834 qualifies for PSE "economy" cert pricing ($20,) which for 98+ grades will pay for itself many times over.

FWIW, the stamp shown by the original poster has a small natural gum skip (short gumming at top) and natural gum crease/wrinkle/bend (both visible in the scan of the back.) Such a stamp will not receive a 98 grade IMO, no matter how nicely it's centered.

srailkb I agree. One of the first things I found when researching this stamp was that Steve Crippe page. That prompted me to start this thread. I think it was Kevin that mentioned the gum needing to be perfect. With that and other comments, I knew I wouldn't be worrying about certifying this stamp.

What I will do, is find a nice $2.00 with top selvage and make a nice looking set.

An additional note: revcollector, I do have two plate number blocks that have the correct plate numbers for possable 832b. But...I cannot, with the crappy fluid I use, and my lack of skill, see the watermarks. Am I remmebering correctly that the 832b hinges on either having or not having a watermark?

I'm 99.9% sure they are the common version, but I have them in the "for further review" pile.

I was reading the posts and remembered I have these 834's(?). Thought I would share. Pretty good shape unhinged and full glue on stamps. The black on back was from stamp stock book and I rubbed it with silk cloth and comes off without removing glue but I'm scared to touch any further. I just did it a bit in the center. Would this be worth something more since they are attached. Worth certifying?

Stamppaige, it's not about certifying that this thread is about it's about grading. Your stamps are obviously 834's but they are centered high and would not grade out very high. also the black gunk on the gum would severly reduce the value.

Whoever paid $750 for the 98J simply has nothing better to do with their money and plenty of money where $750 doesn't even dent the wallet.

Thanks, still trying to get this hobby figured out. Always appreciate the help and educated opinions.

The watermark on the 832b is a double line watermark that is pretty easy to see. It should be very easy to see in the selvedge just by holding it up to the light if it is there. It is true that the watermarked examples only come on certain number combinations (both numbers must be in the 22000 range if I remember correctly).

revcollector,
I'm going to dig those out tonight and re-check em. First, I'm going to pick up some of the lighter fluid that folks here have mentioned.
Does gum make it harder to detect watermarks?

I think you're correct about the numbers. Of course those numbers are also used for some of the #832's. So it's all about the watermarks.

I'll disagree slightly with revcollector. The watermarks on 832b are quite frequently VERY light, and difficult to see even in fluid. Let it sit for a while before deciding there's no watermark (and to answer your other question, gum doesn't make it any harder to detect watermarks.) It's definitely easier to see the watermark in unprinted selvage -- and those often CAN be seen when held up to a strong light.

As far as plate numbers go, the numbers for 832b are the same as those on 832's with arrow (vignette 22096-22099 and frame 22085-22095.) There is no number combination that is unique to "only" 832b, but any 24000+ number can be quickly eliminated.

Many $1 Prexies can also be eliminated due to the narrow range of frame shades known on genuine 832b's. With experience, you'll know with a glance which ones to check and which ones "can't be."

I stopped at two places (pharmacy and grocery store) and neither carried lighter fluid. I'll have to try a tobacco shop. I guess there are few people that have re-usable lighters.

That hasn't been my experience, but I've only seen about 15 or 20 examples.

stampcrow.....RONSONOL.
Not just any lighter fluid.

Yes sir, that's the stuff I'm going to get. I learned about it on this site. Couldn't remember the "Ronsonol" name. Did a search here and bingo.

I just tried using the 'Clarity' fluid that I have. I bought the bottle six years ago, or more. I don't have confidence in it. Didn't see a watermark this time either, no surprise.