What's Wrong With This Stamp?

Alright, I'm a pessimist, and also a believer in the axiom, "If it seems too good to be true...it probably is." So please advise, what's wrong with this stamp? Seems like a pretty nice copy at a very reasonable (cheap) price. The only thing I can think of is that there's a thin where the hinge was removed, but can't really tell that from a scan. I've contacted the seller and expressed my interest while asking if he'd allow an extended return time to allow for expertization and he replied that would be fine, that he felt confident about the stamp.

Oops....here's the ebay auction number 311531846798

If it was me I will go to City Stamps to check this one , the centering is better, but few flaw on the face. You should ask the seller on ebay to provide you a better scan, the one he show may hide surprise

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USA-263-VF-...AOSwwE5WavFV

I prefer the perfs. on OP's stamp. The perfs. on the City Stamps offering look uneven to me. Both are out of my league, very nice stamps, just my observation.

The stamp mentioned as an alternative has major perf issues. It looks to be reperfed at bottom, left, and right.

The other stamp is also described as having disturbed original gum.

I have done quite a bit of business with the seller of the stamp in the first post. While he misses or ignores a lot of faults, I would not expect to have issues with a return if I had to.

Let's be clear, I don't say to buy the one I link, it's seems to have flaw, I just said if I was in the market to purchase a 263 , I will go at CitysStamp to have a LOOK at it since it's 1 hour drive. ( go as in walk in the store , not go with the purchase on ebay ) And I will ask a scan to the first one link because it's crap the scan.

In my opinion, the OP stamp is preferable, despite the likelihood of something amiss where it is hinged. The second one (from Colonial) appears to have been reperfed at the bottom.

re perforated ????, can someone explain me how this one ( down ) as been re-perforated. You will find a lot of perforations problems with quite few of those stamps

The 263 was printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in 1864 it was their first year of printing with machine they purchase from American Bank Note Company, they start to use them without trained staff and they have many problems with the adjustment of the perforations of the first batch of stamps. Those stamps was produce in small quantity as they needed them.

The stamp from citystampmontreal appears to be reperforated on 2 sides, bottom and right. The other from colonial might be reperforated at bottom or might not. However the scans are not good ones, and I would not trust that stamp to actually have OG, nor would I trust that it does not have hidden problems in the area of the hinge mark. This is a stamp that needs to be examined in person.

This one has not been re-perforated.
Why introduce a block into this discussion? Especially one where the paper chads render any support for the others being of original perforations useless.



True, but rough perforations and enough hanging chads to make a Floridian proud do not mean that a reperf job is not a reperf job.

I would bet my house that the CSM stamp has been reperforated at bottom. I am still inexperienced at identification, but with the hard and straight line of the perf tips combined with 10 of the 11 perf holes either too sharp, too circular or too wandering is a big red flag.

The one from Colonial suffers from a terrible picture. It looks good but a bad picture tend to mean a bad stamp.

I would not spend a lot of money on a stamp who's value depends on the watermark unless it had a certificate.

I am not at all convinced that the Montreal example is not a perforated proof, the more I look at the perforations the less I like them.

That's make sense

even the size are not strait






I see a lot of tears for something cut





10 of 11 ???? Where is your house ?