Scott #68 Misperf Error

I have this ugly Scott #68 with a reinforced misperf. Are misperfs on this issue/era common? Is it of any value or do I throw it into the bargain box? Thanks in advance for an input.
Don

It almost looks like someone was practicing making a re-perf and this one accidentally got in the way. I would think it may have some incidental value, but not sure.

Whatever happened to the perfs, it is a repair job, and a bad one at that. If it has any value I wouldn't know why.


-IBFS

Right on the money... unless one is being accusatory of the top and/or bottom perfs being re-perf'd...

Don Evans' "The United States 1c Franklin 1861-1967" book discusses misperfs on this issue in his section on varieties and production errors, pp34-38, citing the double perforation as the most common error, since perforating was done manually. Add to that the photo comparison above, I would start with the premise that you have a production error, rather than some later fakery.

Here is a #65 with double perfs cropped from a cover.

And I would not call it a repair job as much as a reinforcement. It looks like a collector applied hinge material on the reverse to keep the stamp from falling apart at the error perf line. It's not very attractive, but I don't see it as fakery.

I would have to agree. Everything seems lining up well and I doubt anyone would ruin a higher denomination stamp just for giggles AND the supporting documentation via the aforementioned book on the subject make me lean towards genuine. JMO