Scott 546?

It looks like I may have found a block of Scott # 546 which I bought as Scott # 499 originally.

Looks like a good p11 rotary press candidate to me - nice find!

P.S. You might also want to ask disi123 if he thinks this is "used" and "lightly cancelled." Genuinely used blocks are a LOT scarcer than mint, and if you're looking to flip, he's the most aggressive buyer I know (3x retail) for items that look just like this.

It is a mint block that I bought from the APS online stamp store.

Sorry, jogil, I was just yanking disi123's chain. If you were following the Scott 500 thread, you'd get the joke. All the "experts" know this item isn't postally used either.

P.S. I'm surprised someone listed a Scott 499 block in the APS store. What were they asking, $2? It just doesn't seem like the type of item someone would take the time to submit...Still, nice find!

Disregarding the commentary from the peanut gallery...

The image is too blurry to tell if it's a Type III 546...

If you would be able to upload a large, clear scan of
the ribbon areas, an ID could be made fairly easily...

The stamps have the wrong aspect ratio. A 546 block would be wider relative to the height than the block illustrated. Also, even in a poor quality scan, the toga button would be prominent. The toga button is not prominent at all, a clear sign that the stamps are type I flat plate.

Check the following ebay listing: http://item.ebay.com/281690816399

Clark

Looking at it again, I agree with Clark. Not wide enough. I noticed evidence of poor wiping in the margins (especially visible on the left stamps and characteristic of rotary press stamps,) and didn't see a lot of "white space" in the right ribbons, so thought it could be a candidate despite the poor image. However, in light of Clark's observation, I measured it & got an aspect ratio of around 1.17, not close enough to the 1.12-1.14 you'd typically see with 546's. So count me in with Clark - definitely not a 546 (& no need for a better scan.) Sorry jogil!