Type 1A # 500

That's a pretty lame excuse.

I also have like you inherited a collection from my grandfather.

Most of it in albums and there are notations if a variety
is involved and in the majority of cases he was right on.

It is not a valuable collection money wise, it is to me though since it was my grandfather's.

But if I had found a very valuable stamp there going by what
he believed and marked , do you think I wouldn't have verified it
myself?
Of course I would have.

Ok I'm a stamp collector. You are not. So you say.
But even so you should have found out what you had
before you listed it.

I keep on thinking what you would have happened if this
occurred at a garage sale.
You sell an item for 2 bucks. Then your neighbours tells you
that's worth at least $100.
Are you going to run after the guy yelling
" Heh I want it back, sorry that was the wrong price on it"
or " My wife told you the wrong price"

Anyway good luck to you.

Hey shermae,
Thanks for all your support,
Greed. I do not think so. I would rather donate the item to a charity or burn it on youtube. I might have to certify it. Wow. Thats scary. It might cost $82.50. Not all of us on ebay are desperate. I would love to help those that are. Seems like some folks do not care. I hope to be back tomorrow.
Bob

I'll send you $82.50 if you post a video to youtube showing you burning that EXACT block.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have officially jumped the shark.

I'll see you all on the informative threads.

Goodnight folks - Walking Dead has just started!

Bob,
It doesn't seem that logic nor facts nor consideration of mitigating circumstances will prevail in this discussion. We are all human yet some fail to recognize their own fallibility. I am not you so I don't know your intentions. Because of that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and refuse to pass judgment upon you.

Oddly enough, I found that I purchased a few item from you earlier this month. I got some good deals and you sent them to me promptly and as described. I simply do not know enough about you to justify making the damning accusations that others have made.

So far, I have not read a single argument from others that justifies how poorly you have been treated nor provides reason backing these dissenter's accusations. I will gladly listen to any rational arguments that counter my current opinion. My mind is not inflexible to change prompted by logic and consideration. I can't say that I like you enough from your responses to invite you over for dinner, but that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

Regardless, the horse is dead and I'm tired of watching it being beat. I implore you to start a new thread with a better image of your stamp block. Preferably, scan it at 1200 dpi or higher. Some question that your block is #500. I hope that in the new thread that we can focus on helping you by educating you to identify what you have.

This thread can continue on its course. I hope that it becomes more rational. I do not judge anyone here. Hopefully no one judges anyone because of their opinions. However, anyone making accusations should be required to back them up with logic and reason.

Certainly I will be of no help with any actual ID'ing. But, there are some pretty good clues pointing to #500.
I believe Bob stated the stamps are from his Grandfathers collection. And the stamp was marked 499d.
I don't think it's a huge stretch to think, his Grandfather first acquired this stamp when Scott listed type 1a as a 499d.

So, more important then how individuals conduct business lol the lesson here is... Scott #'s have been adjusted over the years.

stampcrow,
Your argument is well thought out and valid. I thank you for sharing it.

To reiterate it, #499d was a valid Scott listing years ago. Since then, "Scott #'s have been adjusted over the years."

Earlier you stated: "499d in my 1944 catalog, IS listed as a type Ia. Soooo the writing on the back may be correct, just not applicable to modern #'s."

This fact is very relevant to the discussion.

Sorry to be redundant DNA. As always, I appreciate your level head.
I didn't think anyone read my original post.

I believe this site is best when we are helping each other learn about stamps.
I also know that buying and selling is part of the hobby.
So, recognizing where mistakes may have been made, might help others avoid them.

stampcrow,
I agree at the very least that helping each other is the most productive use of our time and energy. I also agree that discussing issues, mistakes or not, helps everyone.

"So, recognizing where mistakes may have been made, might help others avoid them."

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I had not previously considered the issues brought up in this situation.

In a way I am thankful for this discussion. My thoughts are now solidified regarding how I will act in similar future encounters. Unless an ebay seller specifically lists their auction as knowingly and willingly unsearched, I will do my best to ensure that all parties are privy to the situation at hand. As always, no situation is simply black and white and I will endeavor in my humanity to do the best by all parties.

As stated earlier, I am not inflexible. I recognize that I am human and I desire to continuously strive to improve how I interact with others.

These are my opinions and viewpoints. I am not trying to force anyone to conform to them. However, I do encourage everyone to consider the beneficial altruistic aspects of similar lines of thought.

Once again, I welcome all logical arguments regardless of agreeing with my current viewpoint or not.

Yet another reason to never write the catalog number on the back of the stamp. I would never assume the number is correct. At least half of the catalog numbers seen on the backs of Washington/Franklin era stamps are wrong, especially the lower denominations.

When plating information is noted on the back of a used stamp, it is done lightly in pencil. The handwriting of some of the more famous plating specialists is well enough known to be recognized by other experts.