This Has Got To Be Reperforated, Right?

Sometimes I am really surprised at how hard people are willing to work to fake things. I believe the top perfs on this stamp are reperforated. But if it hadn't been misaligned with the bottom perfs I doubt I would have found it.

I mean the perf tips are different lengths, the perf holes look pretty good - the tips are nice and fluffy. I may even see something like pressure ridges.

But I mean it has got to be reperfed - right? There is no other explanation for the misalignment.

(It's an XF-Superb appearing 6 cent Columbian)

The angle of the perforation differs slightly from top to bottom (misaligned row of pins?), but to me, the holes line up OK.

Attached is your image with the top perfs beneath the bottoms and the left side perfs positioned next to the right side.

I'm refering to the fact that top row is not parallel to the bottom.

They should not be parallel. If they were, that would likely be a sign that one was reperforated. As it happens, I don't particularly like the left side, although they do match up. Perfs on Columbians can get a bit strange looking and still be genuine. I was fortunate enough to see full sheets from the one cent to the one dollar at one time, and some of the perfs were very funny looking even though obviously genuine.

The perforations were not always parallel as the perforation wheels were not perfect. If you look at full sheets of Columbians, you can see "wander" and "drift" of individual perforations, sections of perforations or full row of perforations. Check Siegel sale 1239 lot 561 a full sheet of 100. You can also examine other full sheet or full pane images on their site to see the same effect.

Lot 561 also explains why most reperfing on the 6 cent is found is top or bottom. Examination of the top of the sheet shows even the cutting wheel wanders as it removed the top selvage with plate numbers during perforation and trimming.

Now the problem with your stamp is the top perforations look too natural and correct to be reperforated, while the the slight misalignment is a red herring. So sadly, this stamp is likely not reperforated as you had hoped or surmised bases on the slight deviation from parallel. You will have to look harder at the actual perfs at top (or bottom) to find the flaw which will establish the answer you want, if in fact the perforations are not from production.

In summary, based upon your comments and the quality of the photos, the stamp seem not to be reperforated.

I think it is most likely reperforated at top. Don't like not being able to see both sides of the stamp.

From the Philatelic Foundation:




https://www.philatelicfoundation.or...perforation/

Been a long weekend. I was thinking that it was the holes not matching that he was discussing. In any case, such a slight difference does not seem to be enough.

I think it is enough of a runout to be something other than natural. On either side of the stamp in question the non-parallel condition would have been quite substantial at either the beginning or end of the perforating wheel run. We don't know where the stamp was in the sheet. In any case I would vote for a reperf.

I would want to see them in person before making any kind of real decision.

Thank you parcel. I appreciate that you understand my disappointment; nevertheless, the jury still seems to be out. Sinclair requested the front. DIdn't think it would be needed. But sure:

It's not the top that's been reperfed, but the bottom. The overall line of perfs at top and bottom are definitely not parallel. That's a clear indicator of reperfing without question. Another point is that all the perf tips at bottom are noticeably stubbier than the rest suggesting that reperfing was done to yield the largest margin possible while getting rid of damage or a straight edge.

Here's the top edge compared with the left side:

These were set 90° apart and are slightly crooked relative to each other but this did not necessarily happen perfectly in real life. The important thing is that parallel sides are parallel. Still, the perf holes are the same size on both sides and the gauge matches. Worksforme.

Here's the bottom edge compared with the left side:

Again set 90° apart, etc. etc. A number of cleanly cut perf holes in the bottom edge are smaller - that should not be and shows the wrong size pins mostly being used in the reperfing tool. The gauge is also very slightly off between the two sides, not due to being crooked relative to each other.

hy, I appreciate the work, but I'm not convinced. The holes are shorter so you aren't getting the full diameter. Also, when I check alignment of the perfs I check all 4 sides at once. The right, left, and bottom are all parallel and perpendicular. Only the top is out of parallel.

I have to say the responses here are more complicated than I expected. I don't feel I can list this without saying something - maybe I need to get a cert and get a grade if they like it. Worst case it comes back reperfed which is what I would have to sell it as today anyway. But in the off-chance they give it a green light it should get a pretty high grade.

I have a bunch of XF+ Columbians listed without certs and my asking prices are high enough that they probably won't sell without certs. So maybe it's time for a big submit.

Do people still like PSE best for grading? My last submission took forever.

I can tell you 100% that the PF would not give the stamp a clean cert. The top and bottom not being parallel are a no-go.

I suggest that they would make up their minds only after they saw it.

I started out believing it is reperfed. That's how I was going to list it for sale. So if a cert comes back as a reperf, I've only lost the cost of a cert. If there is maybe a 1 in 5 chance it comes back good, it's a win.