"413 Mnh Pair" (Notice The Quotes)...

With so much talk on SCF about collecting fakes, I decided to start
a collection, beginning with this pair... I considered reporting it
to Stamp Smarter, but didn't want to lose the pair... it was just
too 'pretty' to pass up as my starting point...

This appears to be a 384H imperforate coil pair with fake perforations added. The perforation holes appear to be too clean. Because the perforations are aligned between rows, it is likely to have been produced by Richard Kiusalas in the late 1960s.

When scanning stamps, a black background would be more effective for seeing details of the perforations. I am not able to see any fibers or pressure ridges that would be expected if the perforations were genuine. Again, such details would be easier to see against a black background.

Some sellers on ebay may use a light background to hide small defects around the margins of a somewhat less than perfect stamp.

Clark

Here is my Wall of Shame which I hope doesn't grow larger.

I probably have more of a wall of shame than I know about (yet)
with the gobs of material which has been sitting for years which
(someday) I hope to find the time to go through...

However... going through (some) material, during this past year,
I came across a "423E"... which, of course did (not) turn out to
be as such... I really didn't want to keep it at the time, but I
would have also felt quite badly if I had chosen to destroy it,
so, instead, I donated it to the APS for their reference collection.

On the fake 388---Is the reason you have determined it to be a fake is that the perf of the genuine should be 12.67 and the stamp in question is 12.66? I certainly am no expert, but aren't those two measurements close enough to be within a margin of error of measurement?

Where do factoids like 12.67 instead of 12.66 come from? Are you reading some old weekly stamp rag that would publish anything to fill empty space? The correct perf 12 spacing is .066 inch, hence the term 12-66. A couple of recent articles have speculated about differences in perforating equipment between the bank note companies and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, but no one has presented really convincing proof that measurable differences in the perforations would result. Older fake coils, particularly the Claiborne fakes were metric perf 12 which will not match perf 12-66 across the width of a stamp.

Please stay with verifiable facts. This board would be a much better place for everyone. Questions are OK, but questions stated as facts are questionable.

Clark

Clark: Would the 12-66 be more like 11.93 (per 2 cm)? Where were the perforation articles written in? Thanks.

jogil,

The gauge, if measured would be about 11.93. Metric perf 12 places the holes slightly too close together.

Clark

Actually, I have some these Fakes certified. The 388 has been certified as a 384 with counterfeit perfs added to make a 388 coil.The Fake 385 coil, Fake 387 coil and the Fake 352 coil have been certified as Fakes as well. The 12.66 vs 12.76 was my comment when I was trying to figure out why the perfs were fake.

Oops, meant 12-66 12-67, I used a Sonic Gauge.

cfrphoto, your comment made me go back and re-compare a certified 388 vs the fake. After a much more careful look, you were correct. The good 388 matches the 12-66 quite nicely while the Fake sort of matches with a few wandering perfs. Since I had never planned on showing this fake page to anyone, I was very sloppy in my personal comments on the tags. Plus, I imagine once I found out it was a Fake I didn't care much about it anymore. Sorry if I accidental represented information that was incorrect.

The americanstampcollection.com website used to have several different perforation 12 measurements listed on it. However, this website is no longer up.