Scott 8A?

Saw this on the bay and was wondering is it really an 8a?
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1852-FRANKLI...271705276669?

Missing ink?

Personally even if it is a real Ba with the damage that stamp has I would stay well away from it. Its not worth the asking price. Seriously $299 + $29.95 international posatage isn't that a bit pricey for a damaged stamp? I would save the money for something better.

Agreed with Duncanver. Stamp is in deplorable condition and and if it was legit you would think the seller would have used a smaller font and used a much better description.

This listing reminds me of the Arlo Guthrie Movie "Alice's Restaurant-" The part when he got caught dumping and was in court over it "with all the glossy pictures with all the little arrows and descriptions on the back..." ha-ha...sorry it's struck me funny. Sort of shows my age too! :)

http://youtu.be/6BHUQ56AWwI

The description is not good, you can't say its a Scott 8a but supposed to be Scott 9. Its one or the other and if seller is not carefull someone will want their money back saying item is not as described, if anyone actually would pay that much for it? If that seller was not sure what the stamp number is he should get it identified & certified. If you bought it as an investiment you would be shocked when you try to resell it and the dealer offers you 10 cents for it because its damaged. Stay well away from damaged stamps like this one. Even if its rare if its damaged the price is not $299 but more like 20 cents. I question high start prices on damaged stamps.

Thanks for the advice. I thought it looked like most of the other used Franklins on ebay and did not notice any damage. I do see the broken top line that the seller is referring to, wouldn't that make it an 8a?

No it would not. The outer center line needs to be broken. This seller has a vivid imagination, and he's posted here before, usually showing items that are not exactly what he believes they are. I beleve the 1c specialists that read this board will say that without the stamp being plated, it should not be described as an 8A. It *might* be an 8A, and I would assume that a plater might be able to figure it out pretty easily by all of the double transfers present, but the seller doesn't know that, so it's misleading to offer it as 8A.

Agree with bill w its misleading and should not be priced that high with damage like that. If its misleading it should be removed from ebay.

This definitely plates as position 98R1L, and so by definition is Sc #9 regardless. There are no breaks in the top line, which is mostly cut away anyway. Merely a poor impression.

The left margin has been added as well.

I am not a pro with American stamps, but are we missing something here...??
Looks an awful lot like a re-entry/double transfer to me..??

see link
http://www.re-entries.com/bep_maj_1.html

The seller has a history here of being told what his items are only to ignore the advice and list his pieces as something they are not. Search the site here for "Coinwatcher"

Coinwatcher...YIKES
I thought we heard the last of him/her...?

wert, it is definitely a double transfer, and a rather good example of one at that, but that does not make it a Sc #8A. It is Sc #9, position 98R1L, double transfer variety.

I agree that the plating is correct at 98R1L, which makes it a type IV, Scott #9. I have reported the item.

People like this never learn. The fact that he plated it correctly (or had someone plate it for him) and still listed it as an 8A is ridiculous. It is a damaged stamp that has a stain and is cut off on top. The 8A only comes from Plates 1 early & 4, not Plate 1 late.

His listing is laughable;

"The top recut is missing with clear broken top line making this stamp a Scott 8a when it is supposed to be a Scott 9. Perhaps an initial printing of plate 1L before the re-cut?"

From the book by Mortimer Neinken