Washington 90c - #39 Cancelled?

Since the plate consisted of a right and left pane only, there are no "natural" straight edges on stamps of this vintage. So the bottom straight edge on the stamp ILS posted is the result of perf trimming. Maybe that was done when the stamp was used, or maybe there were perf problems that someone later sought to hide - who knows? But there should be perfs there. I did not check the other perfs.

As for the reperfing of the other #72, I did a Srail test on it and the top and bottom perfs lined up fine, but the side perfs do not gauge the same. I cannot tell from that which perfs, if any, are good, but I can say that not all the perfs are good, and conceivably all of them could be bad.

essayk - Thank you for the insights, especially that there wouldn't be a natural straight edge. I notice on ILS's stamp that 2 edges have 'angled' perfs like mine does. Could that be an optical illusion or perhaps even produced by the direction it was torn when it was separated from the rest of the sheet? If neither of those cases are appropriate, would that be the indication of the reperfing? I notice that 'angle' on the top and left (looking on) side of ILS's and both sides and bottom of mine. (I'm not sure why it is, but I seem to have some problem wrapping my mind around reperfing and how it is determined, so please pardon the questioning.) While on the subject of perfs, do you know where I might find some added information on the Srail test - what the tool looks like, where to get one or how to make one, etc.? I did a 'google' on it but all corresponding links were dead-ends.

I_Love_Stamps - Thank you for posting your stamp. I think it is a shame that the straight edges aren't inherent with that and many other stamps. I rather like them. (Just have to keep people and their hole punches away.)

Walkabout, the "angled" perfs on your stamp are due to the addition of extra perf holes rather than the method of separation. In the image below you can see that the red arrow points to the remnants of an original perf hole, while the black arrow indicates the added perf hole. This creates the effect of an "angular" perf tip. I do not see any evidence of added perf holes on the example shown by ILS.

dudley - Thank you! That is quite helpful. I wasn't looking for or taking into consideration that it was something THAT subtle. So, it isn't just the fact that the openings look angular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamp_test

Just kidding!

https://goscf.com/t/21600

cfrphoto/Clark on that thread posted an image where he is comparing the right hand to the left hand perfs. In his example you can see how the size and spacing of the left hand perfs are different.

This can be done by comparing opposing edges or rotating an edge to compare to itself to check for consistent spacing. Here's your stamp with a few few of each type:

To me it seems that only the bottom is not reperfed.

Historical DNA Collector - Looks like the top and bottom have about 1/2 difference, or could that difference be accounted for by the positioning of the reperf? Hmmm, the spacing is too uneven - never mind - looks like the 1/2 off. I think I will play with some photos of this myself. Sometimes I can see through a brick wall, and sometimes I can't see diddly. However, Thank You! That is a good bit of help, especially for the 'proof' aspect. I guess experience will help with the 'spotting' aspect. The help is very much appreciated.

"As for the reperfing of the other #72, I did a Srail test on it and the top and bottom perfs lined up fine, but the side perfs do not gauge the same."

I disagree. The top and bottom don't look like they line up to me (they're not parallel -- circles at left, squashed ovals at right - and there's also a slight mismatch of gauge by the time you get over to the right side.) As far as which one is reperfed (top vs. bottom,) my bet would be the bottom.

One of the sides is also definitely reperfed. You'll see circles at lower right, but a horrible gauge mismatch at top right (especially the top two perf holes.) There's also a gauge mismatch in the middle of the side (affecting 4 perfs.) Almost certain that one or both sides are fake. Right looks worse than left IMO, but to be honest, they both look bad.

Actually, NONE of the perfs look great. Any chance it's rebacked with fake perfs everywhere? (Based on the overall "look", that's a possibility IMO.)

My "Srail test" below:

Srailkb - Thank you for the input on the Sc72. Is it that more than one method of reperf was used - perhaps done more than one time - or is that why you would think rebacked? I'll get a glass out and also check the thickness for rebacking? That is an interesting method of displaying the edge landmarks. Is there someplace to read up on the method? Thank you again for taking the time to demonstrate and comment.

Look for the "bottom" of each perf hole and how well it aligns to the comparison edge. Are they all the same spacing? With the same image as I presented before, but with the bottoms having perpendicular lines, we can see that none of the edges except the bottom have consistent spacing.



Even though this type of test may return even spacing, it may just mean that the person did a very good job of reperforating. This test is best for weeding out those that were reperforated poorly. Size and looking for naturally oblong holes of the perforations is the next step in determining genuine perforations. This step can be quite difficult and is most easily dealt with by having physical possesion of the stamp and a Kiusalas guage. However, I am not the most proficient person when it comes to this level. Hopefully others will chime in with further image analysis techniques.



-Edit: I almost forgot about another important easy to do image analysis technique. Draw a line across the perfs of each edge. Are they all in alignment? In your stamps's case, all but the top are close to being in line with each other. In this case it is additional information that in light of the other tests doesn't dispute that the top, left, and right side are reperforated. It somewhat strengthens the case that the bottom perfs are original.

That's precisely why I scanned that one was because it had a straight edge that wasn't supposed there. A bad trim job too look at all the angles on that straight edge once! I thought it fit this thread well. Thank you.

Historical DNA Collector, IMO "flipping" a side to check for a reperf isn't recommended. While you'll detect certain types of gauge irregularities (like inconsistent spacing along the side,) you'll miss a host of other very detectible reperfs. You'll also double the chances of false positives (e.g. a bent perf pin will give you two mismatches, not one.)

For instance, if someone has created a "jig" to reperf a complete side, your "flip" will come out looking perfect (because the spacing will be exact,) even if the gauge might be completely wrong & different from the other sides. You'll also never detect any "parallelness" issues (since you're flipping the side on itself, they will always be perfectly parallel.) IMO, the parallel test is one of the most important, as the truly "expert" reperfs almost always get the gauge exactly right...

On a related note, you really do have to line the perfs up to check parallelness, and doing so is only possible if you change the opacity of the layer so you can overlay on the opposite side. You can't leave a gap and "eye it up."

My advice to anyone trying this technique: always compare top vs. bottom and left vs. right, and learn the basics of layers; change the opacity of the one side (I use 50%) to overlay & align the perfs on the other. Line up the first three perfs as best you can (i.e. "best fit" creating perfect circles) and check the alignment and parallelness down the remainder of the side. For sides that aren't exactly parallel, you'll see those circles turn into ovals, even if the gauge is exact/correct (what happened on the top vs. bottom comparison in my image above.)

walkabout, I suspected possible rebacking on this Scott 72 due to the "wonkiness" of the perfs in general and the overall size of the stamp (pretty big to be reperfed on multiple sides, although not impossible.) There are also a few areas where the cancel (or lack of cancel) looks suspicious along the edges. All of those can be signs of rebacking or expertly added sides/perfs.

A picture of that stamp sitting face down in a puddle of Ronsonol would answer a lot of questions for me.

Scott catalog clearly indicates that ALL used #39's need to have a cert to be considered real. Buying one of these without a cert should only be done if a person is willing to throw the same amount of money into the gutter.
Picking up a cheap space filler without a cert is certainly always an option but I hope everyone clearly documents them in their collection as such. We are seeing a lot of 39s popping up in Stamp Smarter; folks are being screwed a lot on this stamp.
Don

Agree Don - used 39's are "guilty until proven innocent." ...and while the one posted at the beginning of this thread was a crude counterfeit, many of the genuine unused 39's with fake cancels are quite deceptive. Not surprising they're a frequent entry on StampSmarter.

But the used 72 up for discussion now is a more interesting case IMO. The stamp itself is almost certainly genuine, but whether any of the perfs are still remains to be seen :-)

P.S. Nice to see a post from you this morning! Thanks for checking in with everything else going on...