Help, I'm Learning. Is This Stamp Reperfed Or Touched Up?

I took a slice of the bottom and laid it on top. Does this stamp look right?





-IBFS

I cannot tell from this image, there just isn't enough detail. You also need to have that "slice" in a layer on top of your image, reduce that layer's opacity to about 60% or so, then move the slice down so that at least one of the them is a circle. If the holes don't all line up or transition from holes to ovals, then the perfs might be faked.

I and others could help you, but we would need a much larger and detailed scan. The sides of the design in your image aren't parallel, so you either took it with a camera or need to place a bit of weight on your scanner's lid. This type of test can only be done with a camera if the picture is taken from perfectly centered above which would require the use of a suitable stand. A large high quality scan of 600 DPI works. 1200 DPI would be better.

This looks like it might be an image from an online auction. Without being able to get a quality scan, I would say that only the top perfs look close to normal.

Looks alright to me.

The top and bottom do line up, hole to hole, just shift the top cutting to the right a bit, all except the middle one pointed out by the arrow.


That could be caused by a slightly bigger hole (?) on the top of the picture, bottom of the stamp.

Hmmm, the right side look funny somehow though.

Need more of an expert tham me.

Here are the sides by comparison.




-IBFS

I gave it a shot assuming that you cannot get a better image. Since it is taken from close to perfectly above, the test can be done by comparing each side to itself. The closer it is to perfectly above, the better the results will be for either method. This stamp isn't too far out of alignment so the results are probably accurate.

The top looks decent, but the other 3 sides look like they were reperforated.



Doing it the usual way by comparing opposite sides it appears that the left and/or right and maybe the top and/or bottom are reperforated. However this analysis is not as accurate due to the aforementioned lack of the sides being parallel to each other.



Edit: We've got more heads working on it! Puzzler, that one hole out of alignment could be due to a bent perforator pin.

It is a seller's image copied from APS. That's all we have to work with here. I will note that a photographed image makes sides look unparallel. My posts if I can help it are always 1200 dpi scans.

I see what you are saying tho about the proper way to compare a slice. This I will practice.


-IBFS

Practice as promised. When I resized the image it came out much better than I expected.

The side perfs look good but the top and bottom I am still not sure of.



Thanks DNA for the Srail tips.


-IBFS

IBFS - I believe APS will allow you to have it certified if you buy. If you do the certification through APEX, they'll even refund the cert fees if it turns out to be faulty.

Matt

Matt, good point that I didn't know about. Thanks.

IBFS, resizing the image does make it look like the image is now "clearer". However, that is due to your image editing program filling in the missing information with what it "interpreted" to be the best fit for what should replace the missing data. It looks like you did the same as me by resizing it 200%. That actually increases the number of pixels 4 times (length * 200% + width * 200%). The new image may look nicer, but it is now only 25% accurate data now. That doesn't mean that the "new" data is always inaccurate, but it needs to be considered. Especially so for images that are low resolution to begin with (300 DPI and below) and when the image size is enlarged by more than a small amount (such as above 25%).

Trying to analyze the results of the Srail test for this stamp is mostly futile. The sides compared to themselves method is more accurate in this particular case, but still isn't 100% accurate data to look at. Search this forum for "srail test" and you'll find many discussions about it. You'll also find many starting images at the beginning of those threads that you can practice with and then can read the expert analyses that follows.

From what I remember, no clear instructions were ever outlined. My first post in this thread briefly but accurately discussed the image editing process. The analysis part has never been written about in a succinct manner inside of one post before. The main thing to note is that the test is not 100% definitive. Many genuine and non-altered stamps "fail" the Srail test. However, the test is definitive if reperforations were poorly made where the results of the test are notably bad.

Indicators of reperforation include:
-not having generally round hole shapes which I do not see on all of the holes on the left, right, and bottom sides of your original image.
-circles transitioning into ovals. This indicates that the perfs are non-parallel.
-uneven spacing, but remember that bent perforation pins can account for a small number of them. These may appear in even numbers if comparing sides to themselves.
-greatly differing hole sizes.
-misalignment across the length of a row, but remember that Perf 10 only on one side do exist as a very collectible and valuable variety. Also remember that this variety can be found transitioning from perf 11 to perf 10 on that one edge. "Perf 10 on one side" only applies to some of the 1908 series of Washington and Franklin definitives and some of the 1922 definitives.

Indicators of original perforations include the opposite of the conditions above. Also, analysis of the holes by themselves without another edge compared to them should show:
-the holes should be slightly oval. Rotary stamps will have both vertical and horizontal perfs that show elongation in the same direction. Flat plate stamp perfs can be elongated in the same or opposite directions.
-one side of the holes will appear a bit rough in the same patterns as the elongation of them. Seeing this requires extreme magnification for physical examination or very high scanner DPI settings such as 4800 DPI and above. Be aware of the optical resolution of your scanner. Anything above that will interpolate the missing pixels and may not show the actual appearance.
-"tufts" of fibers at the end of perforations should be present. The appearance can vary by paper type. They can also not appear if the perfs were cut and not torn. These tufts can also be faked.

Other members, please correct me if any of this is inaccurate and please add anything that I have missed. Also, I know little about how to identify genuine "tufts". Please reply with how to detect them and with pics if possible.

Let me kindle this thread out again... Was doing a reperf test similar to the one above... copied the perf on bottom to the top and left to the right. Do you think it is reperfed?

The columbus looks good, the problem is maybe even too good. I see a stamp like that and ask myself " why doesnt it have a cert by now?"

What differentiates the 1993 issue of this stamp?

"Why doesn't it have a cert by now? One obvious possible answer is that it has been sitting in a collection for the past 40 or 50 years and so hasn't been on the market.

The date in the upper right corner is 1992.



Dan

Thanks, Dan. I knew it had to be something!