Still, we never heard what Kelleher had to say. And the other thread has 2 posts that refute it; no debunking there, in my opinion.
Color: bad original scan or a scanner doing interpretive dance here. With the heavy blur and dot at the right side, I'd expect a wash of the ink color overall. The apparent brilliant white paper is just too brilliant. The orange here is too pale and washy, not a first issue revenue color.
Kindly tell me why February 1871 is a bad date (at least, that's what it looks like to me). Were the first issues invalidated January 1st? Too late for part perfs? I'd expect legal offices to be able to use up existing stamps before buying new ones; a dollar is a dollar.
Now memory kicks in: yes, 1871 is awfully late for a part perf. Troublesome to me is the cancel. It looks like it's aniline ink and that type of pencil apparently was not patented until 1877.
The top isn't even cut straight
Not a problem by itself. Part perfs were cut apart with scissors.
and the bottom shows some slight remnants of perforation holes
All I can see are two dents under "LA", too close together to be perf 12. What am I missing? Further the easiest starting point for a fake would be an imperf. The perfed stamp candidate would have to be a jumbo (this one is slightly wide, too), and one probably from a sheet margin.
If the perfs are genuine, the horizontal margin width should be measurable against scans of blocks. Of course, that still does not eliminate a trimmed top or bottom margin taller-than-usual perfed stamp. Can the blur and dot on this stamp give us a position?
Nonetheless, it could
be a part perf but not a proven/provable
part perf. The margins don't look big enough to be a R66b without question. Then the only satisfactory example would be a vertical pair. Some of you then won't like the singles passed by the PF here (last on page 2, 3rd on page 2):http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp
In any case, if sold (rather iffy), it's going for a cert anyway.
And nobody here has mentioned the pulled perf.