Despite Old Certs, Wondering If This "17-P1" Is Actually 44-P3

I see two certs here:



The one on the left issued in 1979, and the one on the right issued in 1963.

All "bad" stamps start out as genuine raw material. In the specific case of the stamp in question, it **IS** a genuine #17, but has obviously been badly doctored to appear as it does now. But that doesn't change the fact that it started out as a #17. So why would we want to say "no opinion" when we can figure out exactly what's wrong with it? IMO *that* would be wrong!

One last point. The "proof" that this APS cert. is surely genuine and not fake as alleged is this; why would someone who is trying to pass off a nice-appearing copy of #17 want to show a cert. that states numerous serious things bad about it? No, you would want to make a fake cert. with the stamp described as being sound, or nearly so, to try to maximize your profit.

Ah yes! You are quite right. Silly old me. They fooled me. I thought it was just one cert! No wonder he didn't answer me. He must have thought I was goofy! My apology for not seeing both.

Bill W. That is what I was saying in my post - two, side by side. I have never known Bill Langs to fake a cert. Intentional misinterpretation, that is another matter. BL has no qualms about disagreeing with other authorities, and insisting on his own ideas. But if he shows a cert he does not flinch from showing what he has even if it doesn't quite support what he is claiming about his item. He has items that he says come "with a PF cert" and he shows you the cert which has declined an opinion. Oh well.

The important thing to note about those certs is that they do NOT claim what Langs is claiming about the item, namely that it is a die proof. That approach IS a typical Langs trick.

essayk; Yes, you are right. I was obviously confused and saw only one cert. I agree with all of your observations on the Lang's listing.

The thread became confusing once the image of the other #17 item with the APEX cert. that disi claimed was fake, so that started a side-bar conversation, so we had/have two different items being discussed here.

Now, going back to the Lang's listing, note that both certs describe it as 17P (the APSC as "17P" and the PFC as "1851 12c"(proof) so that must be a 17P. So in his defense, since the *only* proof that Scott lists for #17 is a 17P1, so how can we hold it against him if he describes it the way he has?

I concede to the logic of what you are saying about what those certs are communicating, Bill. Langs is exonerated on that score. As long as it is a #17 proof, it must be a die proof.

Would a fresh view by APEX or the PF still support those earlier opinions? For the money involved any potential buyer should make the sale dependent upon seeking a fresh opinion.

Oddly enough, Randall's observation about the irregular appearance of the left frame line is actually an argument in defense of the present opinion. The notes in Scott about "weak outer frame lines from the die..." coupled with their completeness suggests that if this is on India paper then it could well be from the die as Langs is claiming. But I am dubious about the paper as India, and a #36BP5 looks to me like an alternative. Nor can I rule out the possibility of a #36BP3 plate III proof on India. Someone who has a better understanding of the positions on plate III could tell for sure - which should have gone into the earlier certs.

But beyond this, PF cert #204398 was issued for an unreduced 17P1, and that proof shows layout lines on the left and bottom that go right near the edge of the adjacent frame lines, and guide dots that practically rest on the left and right frame lines. See http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch//image...4/204398.jpg I would expect to see some evidence of those items on a bona fide die proof.

Essayk; I agree with you. I found a second 17P1 on Siegel (Finkelberg Sale) and that too has the guide dots in the same position;

http://www.siegelauctions.com/zoom/...wer.php?url=http://www.siegelauctions.com/1999/816/1095.jpg

So as you said, you would expect to see traces of some of these dots/lines on the Lang's copy. In fact, if you look close at this one, I think there is a layout line that extends in from that left-side guide dot into the vignette frame! Can't see it on the image from the PF as it's too small and unclear to be of much help. So if the old certs that accompany the Lang's copy are correct (doubtful given the two images we've found), then what is it? I vote for 36BP3 or P5. It is difficult to believe that the experts could not correctly identify india paper, so if they are right that it is india paper (which is the only paper 17P exists on) then I favor 36BP3. Of course, if it's stamp paper, then it could be the rarer P5. Why don't you ask him to send it to you?

** Ah, I see the link isn't working right, but anyone who cares can find The Finkelberg Sale which was Sale #816 and this item is lot 1095.

Bill Langs stamp is a 44P3 if on India. I would sooner think that it is a 44P4a.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/44P3-XF-SUP...em27c0723cdb

Here is a 44P3. Note how nice and straight the left frame line is? I'm starting to lean toward a repair of some kind in the left margin of the original item that started the thread. That frameline is terribly "bumpy".

I agree that there is a good chance of a repair of some sort on the left side as well as the lower left corner.

Has anyone considered that Herman Herst would most likely not submit a stamp on india paper to the PF as a Sc 17? It would have been nice to have a scan of the back of the stamp, but in any event it doesn't appear to be on india. The odds are pretty good the stamp is on stamp paper, since Herst submitted it as a stamp and not a proof. Scott lists a 44P5, but does not supply a value. Any thoughts?

A 44P5 must be the same as a 44P4a (or maybe I should have called it a 44Pa) in my older Scott catalogue. Siegel sold one in 2003 for $250 not including tip.

Sinclair - You're right. I couldn't figure out why Scott started using "P5" for on stamp paper, and now I see why, since it did provide confusion and I doubt if they had room to add a another column for on stamp paper. The dash, for not enough samples to supply a value, is under the "4" column, thus "P4a" makes a lot of sense. I was so stuck on P4 being on card I hadn't thought of that. And thanks for supplying an auction result, I'm going to write it into my Scott Cat for reference. Quite a difference between $12,500 and $250. I notice my 2013 Scott lists the 43P5 for $50, and lots of P5's list at about $300, so $250 sounds in the ball park.

OK, I think I have this whole thing figured out, and I've devoted way more time to it than I should have, but I became obsessed with what the item really is in the OP. First of all, the original die state of Scott #17 is what essayk showed us earlier from the PF website. I talked about a second example in the Siegel Finkelberg sale. As essayk correctly observed, the original die state has clear position dots at the right and left center margins, very close to the frames. So before the stamps were issued, these position dots, layout lines, etc were burnished out so on the issued stamp there is no trace of them. BUT, on the issued (#17) stamp there *IS* a constant line on many of them at the bottom right directly under the right rosette design. On others there is nothing in the bottom margin. So #17 issued stamps will either show that line or have a blank bottom margin.

So when the new plate was made for the 12c special printing, I looked for constant elements present on the new plate that were not on the "original" 1851 die or plate and found them. See this item which is typical of #44P3 (and most P4s that I looked at) which is the dot located below the right rosette directly in a straight line with the left edge of that rosette in the bottom margin. Many plate proofs also show a similar dot below the left rosette (along the right side straight down from the edge). So a P3 and P4 all have the dot at the right, see here
http://www.ebay.com/itm/44-P3-XF-PL...em2a10f3f56b

Compare that with the bottom right rosette area on #17 issued stamps, but more importantly, note on the Lang's copy in the OP, that the same two dots are present and since they are NOT present on the #17 die proofs OR the #17 issued stamps, they therefore MUST be from the new plate and it is positively a 44P IMO.

Now something very interesting exists. And that is the Scott listing for #44P2. Here is an example;

http://www.ebay.com/itm/44P2-1915-S...em27c96b00da

Siegel noted this interesting fact when they sold one years ago (might have been this same copy, who knows?) that the 44P2, despite the Scott listing as #44, should actually be correctly identified as #17P2 because the original die was used (note the strong position dots at the sides and other layout lines, etc). Now WHY Scott identifies this as 44P2 rather than 17P2 is anybody's guess, but in the back of my mind I sort of recall that Stanley Piller has tried to get the listing corrected without sucess. Why Scott doesn't correct it, is unknown, though I could and will ask the Editors.

Sorry for the long post and I also wanted to have a link here to an unused #17 so readers could see the constant "scratch/line" under the bottom right rosette, but I ran out of time. Maybe I can add it over the weekend. This is probably way more than most readers will care about this one ID, but hey, we aim to please!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/17-Unused-X...105764&rt=nc

And here is the image of the #17 issied stamp. Note that all of the position dots and layout lines found on the die are now gone. But the distinctive ID feature is the dot below the right rosette area, which differs from those found on 44P. This dot is found on most copies of #17 **or** there is nothing in the bottom margin at all (whereas #47P always has one or two position dots as previously explained. I wish I had the computer skills to show all these in one post, going fromthe original #17 die, to the issued #17 stamp, to the #44P so that the differences could be quickly and easily seen! Even better would be with those small "arrorws" pointing to the salient features!