Scott 500 Ebay???

I hope you guys are considering reporting these fakes on Stamp Smarter? Although I must confess that they are **SO** bad and the seller so clueless and the likely sale prices so low, that I'm not sure it's worth the effort!

The title line of the alleged 388 even says "Sound With"--trying to trap people searching for "with certificate"!

Seriously, disi123?

IMO, you could have received an expert opinion (actually "multiple" expert opinions) right here, just by asking. And you would have saved yourself the money, time, & subsequent return. Bill W., Clark, Bart, etc.? Any "expert" care to opine? What are the odds this stamp receives a cert as postally used? 1%? 0.1%? 0.001%? 0%?



So while we're waiting for that expert opinion/certificate, I'll stand by my "conceited pile of unmitigated jibberish [sic]" (boy, you have a way with words!) that no major expertizing body would certify this stamp as postally used. And the cert will also mention those "not-a-cancel" blemishes, whatever they are (my guess = carbon inclusions, 90% likely.)

But hey, I give you credit for stubbornness. Most people wouldn't go through the trouble of buying an overpriced, misdescribed lot just to "prove" something that could be easily answered by asking a question in a forum.

Ken... as I said... I don't want, nor need this stamp...
and I most certainly *do not need* any cert for it to
prove that your commentary on it is 10,000% incorrect...
I'm no expert, but I am most certainly an advanced enough
collector to know what I'm looking at physically, without
engaging an expertizer...

After I examine it and scan it, it's going to the OP...

Randall

Hopefully you didn't mean what you said before ("...and I'll offer it up for sale at a half of what I pay.") That would still be too much IMO.




How 'bout this? Since you're generously covering the cost of the stamp, I'll offer to generously cover the full cost of each cert that says this stamp is genuinely used. I'll accept opinions from Bill Weiss, PF, PSE and/or APEX.

Since I'm obviously "10,000% incorrect," that leaves you with almost no downside risk & those free certs will add significant value for the OP. I say submit away! You will make the OP so much happier to get a stamp w/ 4 certs! Or even 1 cert...

So do we have a deal? If not, why not?

Here's one that appears pretty scummy. Large seller puts up an alleged #500, NH. Says there's a certificate. He shows the stamp in the card as submitted to the PSE but not the certificate. However, the PSE puts the owner's identification on the card, submitted as a "500/typeIa" which is NOT the PSE's opinion. The uninitiated might not understand that and assume it's the PSE's own description:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-500-type...em2c9ad2f275

Here's the ugly truth, courtesy of PSE's certificate verification - it's a common #499 reperforated on two sides, mentioned unambiguously on the certificate:
http://www.psestamp.com/Cert/01133513/

So it appears the seller is attempting to entice bids based on the PSE's sticker on the submission card, not on the actual PSE opinion. It's getting ugly out there.

This is gotten to be a very entertaining (and informative!) thread.

The hits keep coming. Here's a stamp being sold as the rare Type II rotary coil, Scott #491. With certificate, no less. A stamp that has been clearly altered by scraping off the shading lines from the ribbon that betray it's pedigree, which is the common #492, Type III.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/491-VF-OG-V...em2c9550b552
How does the PF in 1956 opine it's genuine? Well, it actually says it's a #491a, which in 1956 I'm guessing WAS the Type III. So Scott changes the number to #492 for the Type III and a creative soul alters the stamp to be a Type II to match the Scott number on the obsolete certificate. Brilliant!

Last for now is a truly scary stamp. This #491 has a certificate and has not been altered. Problem is that it's just a misidentified #453, Type I. The expert committee missed BOTH the type and the watermark. If a committee can miss a watermark on a stamp that only comes watermarked how many alleged #491's with certificates are really #454, the watermarked Type II, in which the watermark was overlooked? Seems like what used to be pretty rare, the #491, has become more common lately and I've started to wonder why. That's why I preach paper inclusions as indicators of the inferior unwatermarked paper.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/491-Used-2c...em58ab5f3007
How am I sure it's not a Type II from a worn plate? Because at center upper of Washington's head there are several heavy hair lines (right about where the cancel crosses the top of the head). One of them is shorter than the rest, leaving a colorless gap in between two heavy hairs. When the Type II die was prepared the short hair line was extended to fill in this gap. So this is Type I. Scott doesn't mention this identity trait, nor does the Expert's Book, Armstrong, Johl or any other source I've read.

491/491a listing from the 1954 Specialized catalog:




491 had been split/rearranged/renumbered to the current numbering by the 1960 edition with Type II as 491 and Type III as 492.

Meanwhile... back at the ranch... to the "inclusion-nonsense-debate"...




Here's a backscan of the stamp, the seller was so kind to have provided
to me, prior to packaging for shipment... the stamp is gorgeous and
stands on its own merits... cert not needed for any purpose...

chaulkdust will be very proud to be its new owner...

John, thanks for that. The PF must have missed the scraped-off shading lines at the time, as the 491a was the Type II. Hard to believe. I bet some searching on the PF website might turn up this stamp with a newer, bad cert.

Yes, that does look rather nice. Hope when you examine the stamp it meets our expectations. Be nice to add the 500 to my collection.
Thank you disi123.

Wow Tipzi! Great finds of more Bogus material.

Tipzi is the *master* at spotting the dubious...

If he ever writes a book on his philatelic learnings,
I'll be first online at the cashier...