Tempted? Save Your Money!

I wholeheartedly disagree ...

$1400 is a lot of money to put on one stamp for most collectors - even discerning ones. This stamp is also scarce enough that even if one was willing to pay for a filler, they would be lucky to find one for less than $500. A power search of Siegel turned up only 5 examples that sold for less than $500 - the cheapest (by % of cat value) being in 2011 - selling for $425, was badly centered and had a couple of "perf flaws".

If this stamp were the real deal, I'd be happy to add it to my collection!

Brian

Hal - is B.T. Barnum a brother to Phineas?

Disi - if this were a genuine #140 how much would you say it is worth?

Griping about inadequate photos is understandable, but taking that to an imprecation against a seller requires a speculative leap to another kind of discussion. Brian and I started heading that way, and for that I apologize. But now I politely request that you permit me to redirect the discussion back to where it started, with the request that those who wish to dispute about the company or its owner please take that up in the forum for "selling on ebay."

I figure that if a collector knows what to watch for, s/he would not be so easily taken in by what is questionable or outright dubious.

So, returning to the matter of this stamp, what are the telltale signs that things about this stamp are not right? Some have mentioned the secret marks, and those fortunate to have a catalog description can look that up. For the rest?

But beyond that, what can you tell me about the grill (besides the fact that it is hard to see)?

BTW I did not see a repair on this stamp. It came up for discussion, so did I miss something I should be seeing?

Color may be an indicator - to me, the stamp looks black, but having never held a 140 in my hand, I can't say for certain if I could tell dull violet from blackish violet - but we all know how unreliable scans or photographs can be.

The stamp has likely been chemically cleaned - which always sends up red flags for me.

There's also the number written in pencil on the back. Does it say "284a"? I have no idea what that number correlates to, but it's not Scott.

I don't see a repair either, but I do see damage to the lower/left side - perhaps an attempt at reperfing?

Brian

I'd take it down to 1/10 of 1% of Scott to $325 at best, given its condition...

As Brian notes, copies at Siegel (similar in class) sold for as low as $425...

Personally, I don't look at the 140 as a "gotta have" so badly, that I'd
buy a filler... when I buy, I try to buy the best 'for the budget' with the intent of if being a 'keeper'...

It's definitely on the blackish side of blackish violet. I suspect some people are wondering if it is a 162a with a J grill. The grill shape is about right for a J grill, though without a good picture of the points, it would be impossible to tell.

Seller ended the listing...

Okay, the seller did the right thing, but there is more to see here.

Here is an enhanced picture of the reverse. Still think it looks like a candidate for a J-grill?






If you wish, I can add lines to indicate the limits of the grill as I see them. But you should have a sense of this at this point. Why do I say that?

I just came across this very interesting thread, but I guess I'm confused if it's OK to talk about the stamp or the seller, or both. Looks like Essayk opened the door to talking about the seller but then steered the thread back to the stamp.

In any case, I'll just say a few words about both; the grill can not be a "J" (Continental) grill because the "J" grill is "always" very heavily impressed, so much so, that very often some of the points break through the paper. But perhaps an even better reason is that the "J" grill is not known to exist on this stamp in USED condition. This information is easily found in the Specialized Catalog if one wishes to look a little, so perhaps this is the "bottom line" that essayk is looking for?

Insofar as the seller, Sinclair's post about the "Elmer's glue" repairs is spot on. I have observed (rough guess) many hundreds of these "laminated" repairs (as I call them), way too many IMO to be simply randon items picked up in collections. In fact, I've actually seen many of them first hand when they've been submitted to my expert service, and I can tell you that I've **NEVER** seen this exact type of laminated repair anywhere else in my 45+ year career.

I personally see no good reasoin to "make excuses" for any experienced seller, as Don rightly points out, no matter how big or small of an operation it might be. The "bottom line" as it pertains to this aspect of the discussion is that any ethical seller will want to describe his product to the best of his ability, whether he's selling a washing machine or a postage stamp. Saying a seller doesn't have the "ability" to accurately describe things like big laminated repairs, yet goes to great lengths to be sure his "Terms of Sale" point out that it's "possible" that some of the wares offered "might" be repaired, is absolutely disingenious.

Thank you for patiently allowing me to venture into both aspects of this thread, both of which were initially brought up by the same poster. I'm thankful he did. I think it's a great thread. Thanks for starting it!