#17 Block

Yes, I dipped it. The block is sound. I didn't get to see the block before it was sent to me but I immediately suspected at least some fake cancel covering surface abrasions. Try as I did, I could not detect any surface irregularities. Unfortunately, I don't have a UV light. I just don't ever have the need. I really don't think the block has been cleaned with a fake cancel added.

Ideally there would be little suspicion on the block condition, but I too think something is off about it. Surface rubbing and concealing the damage as well as he right margin looks uneven between the vertical stamps possibly was repaired or drawn in? Uv light is a must. But fact that others are leery tells you a pass might be wise, otherwise you are the seller someday with a hard to pass item. Twenty percent of catalog may be fair.

I've been trying to analyze this stamp with various tools and I finally found a method that highlights some oddities. First, it gets very green if the saturation is drastically increased. So the black ink does have a green tinge to begin with.

Next I finally found a way to highlight the areas that seem altered/cleaned/blurred by chemicals/etc. that I noticed along with srailkb (Ken?).



I can't tell you off hand what caused those altered areas, but they don't seem to be natural. I agree with others in that I just don't like this block's eye appeal. Also, top right Washington's left eye stands out so much that it is a bit creepy and draws my focus to it every time that I look at the block as a whole.

The next image is probably just me seeing stars/rings:

A side by side for easier comparison:

sinclair2010...I took the liberty of isolating your top right stamp on your block..I ran it through my software to blank out stamp and show me the lightened area that you are concerned with..To me it looks like possible water damage or abrasion...In my humble opinion..

Robert

Very impressive, serious analysis of the condition of this block.
My experience has been that those who want a block like that will not spend $1-2000 on a 'pretty good' one but will keep their powder dry for an 'especially nice' one, even at a price close to full cat. For a very serious collector of comfortable means, $5000 is not too much different than spending $1500, and he will shun the not so nice item.
Those who have a more limited budget for that item, of course, will be happy to see it come along and jump on it, as it may not be available again.
Unfortunately the downside is that in the future the well fixed buyers will still not want it and it may not be particularly easy to sell again.
This is not a criticism, just an observation. I have been the victim of my own 'jumping on' a not-so-nice item many times in the past.
.

I will join the chorus singing that the UR stamp does not look right (even just going from the original image without the later software enhancements).

Ok. Thanks again everybody. This block was part of an approval lot that was composed mostly of 12c 1851 stamps. The asking price for the block was $2000 with a small discount if the whole lot was purchased. My idea of what the block was worth was so far from the asking price that I said I was just going to return it. I was asked to make a counter offer. My offer was influenced heavily by the general ugliness of the block coupled with auction realizations using Siegel's Powersearch. I figured the block would realize between $700-$1000. I offered $700 and didn't really care if I got it.

Maybe the block could have been bought for $1500 but I can find much better quality for the same money.

Winston/sinclair2010, I'm glad that you didn't end up buying this block even at a discount. Knowing you, your decision isn't surprising regardless of our comments.

wert, I have no idea of what process you used to obtain your analysis image. Can you give us the details of how you got it and how to best interpret the results?