Has This Blackjack 73 Been Reperfed?

I've read how to detect reperfed stamps, but I still need practice.

Has this stamp been reperfed? Anything else wrong or right with it? I like the eye appeal. I haven't added any to my collection yet.

Also, if anyone would say what percent of cv they would pay for it.

Would like to see a scan from the back side. At first glance it appears the entire bottom and most of the left side are re-perfed.

I'll let someone else define a price.

Ok, I was afraid of that. I don't own the stamp, so I do not have a back scan. I was going to buy it, but I am not interested if it has been reperfed.

Thank you for the help.

KIM POSSIBLE -- That's just my opinion. Wait until you hear from a few other members before you make a decision.

Hal

I will keep an eye on this thread and the stamp, but I suspect that you are right.

KIM, take a good look at the perf lines. Look how straight they are in certain areas. They appear to have been worked on with a razor blade. When stamps are removed (torn) from a sheet they leave an uneven perf edge. Paper of the period, after perforation (which was not in a perfect row), when torn, would leave little fiber ends perturbing from the perf ends -- something I don't see here - even against the black paper -- meaning, at least to me, someone worked on it with a razor blade. Next, look at the bottom row of perfs and compare them to the right-hand vertical row of perfs. The vertical row is uneven -- which is normal (though a few perf holes appear re-touched). Now, compare those to the bottom holes that appear almost perfect -- almost too good to be true. To me, that's the give away. Same thing with the left side. Actually, Three of the four side look like they have been re-perfed to some extent. But again, let other members weigh-in before you make a final judgement. Hope that helps.

Good luck,
Hal

This will help...

Kim, you say you have been reading about how to detect reperfed stamps. I applaud you for that and for bringing this to the forum for backup. But please tell us what your reading has told you about detecting anything on this stamp. Rejecting it because you "have a hunch" is really a fear reaction which you don't need to suffer. We can help best if we know what you know (and don't know or can't tell).

Have you learned about the Srail test yet?

Compare the distance of the perf hole beneath the "O" of TWO with the hole below the "C" of CENTS. What do you see?

Essay... while she's doing that... I would like to express my
question why there seems to be frequent mention of 'the srail test'
which is a test most of us (with scanners) have been doing for 20
years, long before most of us ever saw Ken's name appear anywhere...

Fair question. What was it called before Ken's name got tacked on to it? If it didn't have a name then, it has been given one now - and not by me. That is a name I learned here where I also first heard about his particular way of doing the test.

I think it's pretty unofficial, but appropriate. However it looked before he came to it, Ken has given it a pretty good shakedown and has described a procedure to follow complete with caveats. So whatever went before, anyone following his procedure is doing "his" test. I take the name not as a proprietary thing, but as an honor to someone who has taken the time to make something of it.

At least that's how I read the situation. But if someone brought some order to this before, then telling us about it may give honor where honor is due. I'd be all for that. Until then, I will use the only handle I have ever heard for it so I have a quick and recognizable point of reference.

I haven't had time to do the perf comparison test, but will get to it
tonight after work, if someone doesn't post before I do... but I did
a quick test with lines and posted vertically and horizontally, and,
allowing for common deviations with pin alignments or bends, all four
sides seem fairly well aligned...

The perf comparisons, though, will tell the final story...

The O and C are not on the same level with each other in the design...

Much thicker ornamentation below the O... plus the entire design
appears to be shifted clockwise at least a degree or 2...

Look at the distances of the two top 2's to the valleys of the
perfs just above them... this would correspond with what you're
viewing with the O and the C...

Essayk, you are right that I am still in "the hunch phase" of seeing reperfs. I see it as part of the natural progression when there are so many variables that can go either way. Disi gave one example of a bent perf. I love the 1851 1¢ Franklins, and noticed a significant amount have roaming perfs (esp. bottom middle?). When I menioned this to my only collector friend, he told me about the possibility of bent pins. So maybe its a reperf, maybe not. I have also noticed that stamps of this era have straight cuts on cover. Postmasters were used to cutting stamps apart, and some of us do better with change than others. As Hal pointed out, many of these perfs have unnaturally straight edges, but not necessarily in a straight line. I hadnt thought of a razor blade, so when Hal said that it just clicked. Of course an overzealous collector may have "tweaked" the stamp. Knowledgeable collectors may not do that because they just will not alter a stamp but some collectors have that need not just to organize, but for perfection. A little trim here, a little soaking and ironing there. Especially in years past, when they also (horror of horrors) pencilled on the back or selvage.

So at this point I just have to decide which scenario is more likely, my best hunch. I hope to one day develop that eye that many of you have. You look at the stamp and through years of experience you just know.

As to the srail test I have read about it here, and like others I did manipulate stamps with software before seeing Kens work. So I see Disi's point, but throughout history there are examples of this happening. People working on the same thing at the same time, but one person is credited with its invention. One example that stands out is Tesla and his arch enemy ( :) ) Edison. Oh, and the Wright brothers as first in flight (no offense to you great people in the wonderful first in flight state). I think Ken deserves being the inventor, since he did the necessary research, methodology, and documentation and put it out there for us.

Thanks for the great responses, I just have one last question. Is this stamp reperfed? :))

I am editing this because I should have mentioned that I am without my computer for a few days and hate the image editing apps I have tried on my tablet. So the srail test will have to wait.

disi - I have too many other philatelic fish to fry at the moment, so I am going to let you others play with this one. However, without getting out a straightedge I still think you are being misled by the ornamentation surrounding those two letters. I believe it will prove out that the bottom most point of the "O" and the bottom most point of the "C" are both on the same line with the bottom most point of the vignette shading. So the linear comparison I was suggesting was to that level irrespective of what the surrounding ornaments are doing. That said, I think the lowest points of the whole stamp design lie on the curves surrounding the numeral "2" in the bottom corners. The common tangent to these two is the bottom of the design.

It's your ball from here.