Bought As A #545

I bought this stamp on ebay from CKStamps as a scott 545. I am going to return it. I paid under $50 for it, having come across it with almost no time left (a snap decision with little scrutiny).

I have now received the stamp and note that it is reperfed right-side and bottom. It looks like a rotary (light green, washed look); measures 19.5mm wide by a shade over 22mm tall. I'm assuming it had a right-side and bottom straight edge AND it has ink transfer on the back (as a flat plate might).

Is/was this a booklet stamp? Can anyone explain why a rotary would have the ink transfer on the back? The stamp in question is on the right, a 498 is on the left.
Thank you so much

namrevac,

It looks like a 498 to me. I'd return it.

Jack kelley

The description provided doesn't parse. The stamp has disturbed gum caused by adherence to another stamp at some point in time. Did you do a laydown test to verify that the coil is wider than the flat plate stamp and the same width as a rotary coil? The stamp looks like a rotary press stamp and may have a crease in the top margin. The perforations on the left side may be questionable. The problem is that it is almost impossible to create a 545 with sufficient side margins from a 490 coil or from a 538. It may be that the left side perforations were damaged and were "improved". A couple of perforation tips show slight indications of the prior perforations, if the stamp was altered.

Clark

my guess: it is a SC 545 , the ink is from another stamp being in close contact with its reverse, probably damage done by a collector long after the printing. The ink is on top of the gum. The 'flat plate ink on the back' is UNDER the gum [so that it appears on used stamps also]. PS , I don't see any reason to return it if you got to see the front and back before purchasing.

The photo of the back of the stamp is pretty telling. The top 5 vertical perforation holes on the left are crudely cut with a scalpel, or craft knife. Note the 3 straight lines of the cuts making unconvincing arcs.

Here is the 498 on top of the 545; the 498 is narrower. Also a 490 on top of the suspect 545, it is the same width. Using photoshop, the perfs on the right definitely do not line up with the perfs on the left. Also the bottom does not align with the top.
I believe it is a rotary perfed 11 all around. If it is a faked 545, I'm trying to understand what it was or might have been faked from.

Thanks for your input
Bruce

Yes, 498 was printed as a booklet stamp. (Was that one of your questions?)

KGB,
Yes that was one of my questions. Were the booklets flat plate or rotary? I think I read somewhere that the booklet stamps were a bit wider. Could they be a source for a faked 545? ( I know next to nothing about booklets from this era)

Booklet pane stamps were printed on horizontal mesh (or grain) paper. They are slightly wider snd shorter than regular sheet stamps but not nearly as wide as a rotary press coil. The stamp is likely to be a 545 but the top perforations don't form a straight line. Is it possible that the top left or right corner is somehow repaired? Try dipping the stamp in watermark fluid to check for condition issues. (Lighter fluid seems to work best for this purpose.)

If the back is uneven under fluid, shows unexplained black lines or flashes when drying, the stamp is damaged. If some lighter areas are visible, it is likely that the stamp has filled thins under the gum. Inspect the perforations using a 15x (or 10x) glass for small beads of gum or gum inside the perforation holes. The gum looks superficially OK in the scan except for the area under the left corner. Also check the bottom perforations on the left where gum seems to be missing from the tips of about three perforations.

Clark

I suppose it could be a 486 or a 490 that's been re-perfed.

No. The stamp is a wide rotary so it cannot have been derived from a vertical 486 coil. If the stamp was originally a a perf 10 490 coil, the left margin would be very narrow unless a new margin was added.

Clark

Thanks, Clark.

So have we determined why the stamp was altered?

I looked at the stamp in a watermark tray with lighter fluid. Did not see any dark lines or any indication of a seam or repair. Did not see anything that did not look "normal".