Another 315 Wannabe

I do not understand why he could not have titled the listing, "Possible 315 or trimmed 304" etc. To flatly call it a 315 in the title, even if the idea is to attract searches for 315, and even with the qualifications in the rest of the listing, doesn't reflect well on him. I've bought items from him before but will be much more skeptical next time.



Edited to correct Scott numbers.

Why? Because if he did that he wouldn't have gotten $281 for it.

To me, this eludes to an APS member/dealer who should know the philatelic community will not recognize the stamp as being a #315, whether it is or isn't, because there is no expertizing service going to stick their neck out and open a flood gate by recognizing any such stamp that does not measure large enough to insure no possibility of trimmed perforations, and deceptively selling the stamp by stating it is an uncertified stamp, identified as a #315 in his description, with the "as is" tagged on to justify the greed. Whether his or a consignment doesn't matter. It shouldn't have been listed without a through explanation of the consequences of buying it, which obviously would have prevented it from selling for anywhere near what it brought. As I see it, the dealer has seriously impaired his integrity and I'll be very skeptical about buying from him.

I would think, that instead of all this speartossing, that you would contact me directly if you suspect a problem with ANYTHING I offer. It is never my intent to purposely defraud any buyer as that is not the way I do business (and you can ask Bill Weiss who posts regularly here or any number of other posters here who have bought from me as to the nature of my business).

As to this particular stamp, I did received several messages from other potential buyers telling me that the stamp was a fake. However, these notes were received within the 12 hour window in which I could have canceled the auction. I did, though, notify the winning bidder letting him know that the stamp was likely a fake and we cancelled the sale. (And I will be happy to show you the cancellation of sale notice my buyer accepted).

I think that if you look at the following listing, I think the stamp I was selling looks virtually identical - not only with the cancel but
also with the size of the margins:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/170796191140

The one difference between that one and mine was the presence of the centerline on mine. I was told that this is a "clear" indication that the stamp was a trimmed #304. However, aren't there centerlines on 315's? I know that there are arrow and centerline blocks so that can't be a discriminating factor. Then, there is the matter of the so-called "lazy eye" which is, supposedly on the 315. Well, the stamp I link to above does not exhibit that feature.

So, my opinion was that the one I was offering had a legitimate chance of being genuine. Why didn't I get a cert on it. For the reasons I explained above.

Anyway, the matter is settled and the sale was cancelled.
Gary (gsquared7)

Hello Gary, I find your reasoning to be perfectly understandable. Unfortunately, many jumped on the bandwagon and gave their opinion despite not knowing all of the facts. It is unfortunately a very common human behavior.

I have been a member here for a while and I don't find any of the posters on this thread to have demonstrated to me to be malicious in the past. However, we are all human and aren't always perfectly logical and knowledgeable. Similarly, you didn't intend to defraud anyone, but you probably would have not even created that auction if you were aware of the impossibility of that stamp being certified as a #315.

Some here knew that specific tidbit of uncommon knowledge and others propagated the uncertainty of knowledge to the point where virtual pitchforks were being handed out.

It seems to me that this whole situation would have been avoided if others knew about the 12 hour window where you could not withdraw the auction along with general objectivity regarding uncommon and very specific knowledge.

I hope that you and everyone that posted can see how this is simply a matter of all parties not knowing the specific details. You acted on the information you best knew when creating the auction. People on this thread acted on the best information that they knew when they gathered their virtual pitchforks and acted in a subjective manner without full knowledge of what they were acting against.

I hope that this can be chalked up to a simple, unfortunate, and human misunderstanding where no one judges you negatively because of it. Personally, I think that you creating an account and responding to the hostility here by trying to explain yourself says many good things about you.

Sincerely,
Ryan / Historical DNA Collector

I am very pleased to see Gary post here and explain this from his perspective. I can say that I have known Gary for probably 15+ years (full disclosure, he has been a past and present client of WES) and have always found him to be 100% honorable. Which is why I too was surprised to see this listed with an "AS IS" proviso.

But I also agree completely with HistoricalDNAC who, as usual, provides us with a more tempered view of this. Thanks HDNAC.

To address some of the specifics about Gary's stamp, which I have not done previously, let's first talk about the "lazy eye" as a true identifier of #315. It is not. The VAST majority of genuine 315s DO have the lazy eye - which is the underinking of the bottom portion of Lincoln's left eye (our right viewed from the face). But NOT all do. I once believed they ALL did, because I had never seen one that did not have it. I attributed it to late-state printing plate wear in that area, but I was wrong, as multiple plates were used to print 315s, therefore, unless it was a puposeful "secret mark" put there by the printer (totally illogical), it can not be there on ALL 315s, and it isn't.

But to Gary's specific stamp versus the Lang's stamp Gary linked to, we can see that Lang's stamp clearly DOES have the lazy eye, but on Gary's we honestly can't say for sure one way or another since there is a portion of the cancel across the eye at the critical point. So bottom line, we can't say Gary's stamp has it.

So we already know (as just explained) that the "eye" can not be used to determine whether it is "good" or "bad", so let's move on. Gary rightly asks about the centerline. Absolutely, it was on both 304s and 315s, so indeed, it is possible that Gary's does represent a genuine 315. However, experts know from looking at probably many hundreds of these, that centerline copies of 304 were used VERY often to make 315s, generally because there was usually (depending on the cut) extra room created on the opposite side if the cut wasn't exactly on the line. This one is pretty close, but I would say a half a millimeter was gained by the non-CL side. Also, we must consider that the vast majority of #315s were never postally used by the public. Virtually all of them were sold to Private Coil companies, and so not many sheets were available for public purchase (I believe it was only 400 sheets). Of these, the vast majority were bought by stamp collectors and saved as mint stamps, so bottom line, very few were ever "used" and it would be very unusual for a 1910 collector to cut a single copy along the center line. Collectors LIKED the CLs. They wouldn't cut one to use for postage (at least it's not real logical). Further, to demonstrate the rarity of postally used 315s, we only need to know ONE important fact - since the stamp was issued in 1908 ONLY ONE ON-COVER USE has ever been reported! It sold for $50,000. about 5-8 years ago. So the bottom-line liklihood of a a used 5c imperf bearing a centerline being genuine is VERY slim. And you can sort of "prove" this by searching for certified UNUSED 315 singles that show the centerline. You won't find many. You can find pairs and blocks, but not singles.

Last, because of the liklihood of fakery, the benchmark of 21.5x25mm was established some years ago by the APEX chairman, Mercer Bristow, and the other expert services agree and so annything LESS than those benchmarks are automatically considered "bad" (even though, of course it *IS* possible a smaller copy - Gary's included "could" be a real used 315, but if no-one will certify it, for all intents and purposes it is "bad" and basically also valueless in the marketplace.

Sorry to be so long winded, but I wanted to try to present the whole picture for readers.

I would like to thank Ryan and Bill Weiss for their very well crafted comments.

I would also like to welcome Gary to the Stamp Community forum. I only wish it was under better circumstances.

I believe I may have bumped into you (so to speak) at the Minnesota Stamp Expo this past weekend. If so, I hope you enjoyed your visit.

Cheers,
Antonio

Just a footnote. Imperforate sheets of the 5 cent Lincoln Scott 315 were released in two batches. The first batch was secured by a group of collectors in Rochester, as I recall. It is reported that the sheets were divided into panes of 25 with the result that no centerline blocks or pairs were saved. Another batch of sheets ended up in the hands of some dealers in New York and were cut up in a more conventional manner with center line blocks, arrow blocks and line pairs. As a result, line blocks and pairs are relatively scarce.

Genuine postally used copies without private perforations would have originated from a collector or dealer. Although the sheets cut in Rochester may have resulted in a captured center line in the margin, it seems unlikely that the edge would have resembled the slightly rough cut characteristic of Bureau issue straight edges.

When one or two edges of an imperforate stamp is slightly rough and the other edges are smooth, it is a red flag.

Clark

Although I feel bad Gary took a bit of a bruising, this was an outstanding thread! Thank you to all who participated - esp Bill Weiss and Clark for the giving detailed information on the history and identification of this stamp.

As for Gary Goldstein, I emphatically support him. I have done business with him via ebay for many years and have always been satisfied. You handled this very well, Gary.

Brian Riley

I am grateful for the explanations recently posted here, and I'm also a satisfied past customer of Mr. Goldstein. However, I remain unsettled by this listing. Mr. Goldstein's statement above, "my opinion was that the one I was offering had a legitimate chance of being genuine," implies to me that he also knew there was some chance it was NOT genuine. An APS member dealer needs to be held to a high standard, and any such dealer offering a 315 almost certainly knows that the stamp is commonly faked. Yet the title of the listing said nothing about that--it said it was a 315, period. The rest of the listing, aside from the "as is" statement--which conveys little information to other than an experienced buyer--didn't say anything about trimmed 304's or the standards for validating this stamp as genuine.

I am left feeling that the seller knowingly puffed this one up just a bit too much. While I disagree with that judgment, his response is curative and it doesn't sour me on his offerings in a broader sense. I don't see the dialog here as a "bruising," just legitimate questions for a seller who is held to a high standard. He should take pride to have achieved that status -- the debate here is "an upper-class problem"!

It also appears that those who wrote directly to him were not told, "I can't cancel this due to the 12-hour rule," or at least that tidbit never reached back to this SCF dialog.

As for contacting him directly rather than posting concerns on SCF, well, we live in the age of social media and any seller will need to get used to that, engage in and/or manage it, and in any case several concerned parties did contact him directly.

cjpalermo1964, very well said. I agree with all of your points.

HDNAC....Ryan....
that is what I am not reading into your previous post.

Kevin, you are correct. My previous post didn't detail all of the grey areas. cjpalermo1964's last post discussed some of the most pertinent ones and I agree with his opinions concerning them.

Upon rereading my previous post, it came across harsher and more black and white than I intended. However, it did convey my dislike for posts that jump to conclusions. Sometimes well meaning discussions by well meaning people can devolve due to emotions flaring.

Since you're here now, what are your thoughts on the topics at hand?

My opinion will not be liked much here....
I believe a seller has the right to sell anything....
I believe the buyer has a CHOICE to bid or not.
You can not blame the seller....
Believe it or not....there are people who collect
forgeries, fakes, etc....
So when a seller states...as is....it should ALERT
the buyer that the item is/probably not the correct
thing (this case #315....same with flat plate coils)
A seller can not send every item in for a cert....

When a dealer buys a collection/lot that has questionable items
what is he to do with them??
Get a cert?? Then this item should have about 10 certs....
Im sure it has changed hand plenty of times.
I do not find that gsquared7 (Gary) did anything unethical.
He described it as it was....no sugar coating....
if the buyer sent for a cert and it was deemed COUNTERFEIT
he would be entitled to his money back.

How many times to buyers see things that are misdescribed
to THEIR favor??? Buy it...say nothing.
A dealer can not know everything....just be honest and do the best he/she can do.

Example....I sold #1373 that was misperfed to another dealer (thru ebay)....
I did not realize that the misperf caused a color omittted error....he has it listed for >10x what he paid.
Is that his responsibility to alert me???

IMO there is a HUGE difference between cherrypicking and being deceptive.

1) A #315 is a stamp that's VERY frequently faked. This is common knowledge amongst anyone familiar with 2nd Bureau issues.

2) This stamp was offered "AS-IS" Not As-Isn't. AS-IS means you buy it, you own it, regardless of whether or not it turns out to be faked.

3) The stamp was advertised as being the rarity.

4) This is a professional dealer who ought to, and I am sure does, know better.

If this is a $1,000 stamp with a cert then why on earth wouldn't you send it in for one? It's not like this is a really nice, say, #76 where a cert is more for reassurances that it's sound or is a certain grade, this is a stamp that needs a cert to identify it.