S-21 Straight Edge Or Cut Edge

This S-21 with no margin on the right and no perfs is listed on ebay as having a "straight edge" After going through the Siegel database, I find there appears to be no such thing. It appears to me to be a "cut edge" where the perforations were cut off. There is an S-21 with large gutter margin on the right, but it's nothing like the stamp for sale on ebay. I'll post the two pictures.

As far as I know there were no straight edges that close to the design.

I consider it cut.

There are plenty of 1857 stamps with natural straight edges, nearly ten percent of them. It is also possible for a natural straight edge to be this close to the design although I agree that this stamp does not have a natural straight edge. Plating the stamp would tell you if it may have had a natural straight edge to begin with.

There is no question that the top stamp (#24) has had the perforations on the right cut away.

Two things make me say the top stamp has a cut edge. First, the cut appears slightly bowed (as opposed to straight) and second, the lower right corner clearly appears to show the perfs turning the corner with the far right one on the horizontal & the lowest right on the vertical in part still present but partially excised or torn away.

I agree with docgfd on the bottom perf and the bowed middle as seen by a Newby

This stamp is Relief A, so with a natural straight edge on the right it could only be 10L5, 10L7, 10L8, 10L9, or 10L10. 10L7 is the eye curl variety and 10L9 is the ear ring flaw, so we can easily check and rule those out. 10L5 has a blur below the c in cents that is pretty obvious and I don't see it on this stamp. 10L10 has plate damage upper right that I also don't see on this stamp. That just leaves 10L8. Unfortunately those markings are more subtle. I don't see them on this stamp, but would need a better scan to be sure.

Here's an image of the ear ring variety with a close straight edge, natural or not. This image is from the Franklin Plating Archive.



Edited to add image instead of link to image.

Right, raymodj. I believe this is position 8L8, based on the Neinken plating diagram and the Doporto archive photo. See especially the dot below the vertical guideline segment at UL and the vertical dash of color in "Ornament H" at LL (indicated by arrows in attached).

I think you're right Dudley. That would make this a 24 with trimmed perfs at right. I just noticed the original post says it's listed as a 21, so I went looking and here it is. Currently at $90.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CKStamps-US...em5d53adad5f

Here's another one listed as a 21 but side ornaments not complete. Currently $68.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-stamp-21...em5b0a987a7e

EDIT: Seller mentions reperf but lists as "se bottom". Hmmm. I'm not sure how straight that bottom is. I sent notes to both sellers.

Looks like one has listened and one hasn't, raymodj. I too have had occasion to contact the seller of the item that started this thread about a misidentified one-cent 1851-61 stamp (on that occasion it was a #7 pair mislabeled as #8A). He engaged with me, said he'd remove the item if it "proved" to be misidentified, but ultimately didn't.

ETA: Since then I have joined Stamp Smarter.

I have found that they both will "listen" if I contact them - which I've now done on the stamp that started this thread.

Thanks Bill. I'd hate to see someone pay $165 for that stamp, which is where the bidding is now. It's too bad we can't direct some of those bidders here or to Stamp Smarter. I feel for them if or when they try to sell some other misidentified stamps in their collection.

This seller will not take the lot down, I predict. Someone will get ripped off.

I just got a note from ckstamps saying it is a 21 and Bill Weiss was only concerned about the straight edge.