Scott 38 — 30¢ 1860. Legit?

Lots of those, too.

I ran the stamp through Postmark Reveal and the tear that I suspected becomes a lot more visible. Starting from the valley of the 4th perf from the left in the upper left corner, running down through the shield, and ending below the TY of Thirty.

The tear on the left seems quite clear now. I'm thinking there's also a tear on the right. Go 4 perfs in from the RH corner. I think the tear goes from there down to the RH side, 8 perfs down.

One can also see along the bottom where the perfs were added.

This is "Patient 6"
I've added indications of perceived tears, per ZebraMan. I tried adding a line indicating revcollector's observation of the marks delineating the added perfs but it got in the way of the bottom frame line's visibility.

A couple of scoundrels from the PF archives:

Scoundrels indeed! Got 'em both on my list. So here's a question for the group... The opinion for 400459 reads as shown below. Given all of the plastic surgery it's had, how can the first word of the opinion be genuine? Seems like an oxymoron given the description that follows.

Genuine simply means that it is the Scott number that it was submitted as. The rest of the description tells of all the alterations made on it.

Thanks for the explanation, revcollector. I beg to differ with the use of "genuine" as a code word for confirmation of the catalog number, especially in this case, but that's a conversation for another day as much as it is water under the bridge.

Now on to more non-debatable items, today's patient, currently available for sale out in the world. This is Patient #7.

Long vertical crease from the 3 of "30" extending upwards.

My guess is the entire bottom margin was added, from the bottom 5% of "30" and below, tilting upwards at the lower left to include the bottom two entire perf holes.

Looking at the front, I thought there is a vertical tear at the bottom, through lower right shield down to the 3rd perf tip. But from the reverse, it looks more like the entire corner being torn off and repaired. In the scan below, the picture on the right is the reverse of the stamp, I see a fault line mid way through the green lines. Thoughts?



Whatever it is, I agree something doesn't look right down there around the curl. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to pay the certificate fee if PF or PSE comes back and says the stamp is clean.

essay_proof, genuineness and soundness are two different attributes of a stamp. A genuine stamp is one that is truly what it purports to be - an example of the actual issue. Nothing more, nothing less.

@ZebraMan
Now I see the vertical crease you noted. And along the line at the bottom that shouldn't be there, there's a discernible edge that has kind of crumbly appearance in keeping with what you suggested about the whole bottom margin being added.

When I was marking this one up, I thought I saw a tear starting from the same bottom perf straddled by your green lines, and extending upward along the same path. But I wasn't sure.

That's the cheaper one of the two altered 30-centers that this seller is offering. I've written to them twice of my interest, no reply.

@Rhett


Understood, thank you.

If all the alterations were removed, whatever was left would be an example of that catalog number. Badly damaged, a rag, but still that number. That is all the genuine is stating.

Kind of like saying a Chevy Camaro is a Chevy Camaro when the only thing left are the wheels.

@ revcollector. Thanks for the additional clarification. "We're not in Kansas anymore."

FWIW, I try and do my homework on this stuff, and (ironically) the term "genuine" is not explicitly defined on the PF website's glossary of terms. On their FAQ page they offer this:




I think they meant "untrained eyes." But more to the point, this doesn't define the term as you guys have done.

I think it's fair to say most everyday collectors (those with the untrained eyes) would never reasonably expect genuineness and soundness to be mutually exclusive. Case in point: Let's say Mr. Z unwittingly buys a reperfed stamp that was advertised as "genuine," with no mention by the dealer or in the listing of this modification. In fact, let's say it was bought from one of these online sellers who labels every lot with "make sure to examine the photos." Mr. Z doesn't see anything but a nice stamp because he is of untrained eye(s).

Mr. Z later realizes that the stamp was reperfed and attempts a return, arguing, "This is not a genuine stamp, it's been reperfed." The dealer rebuffs, insisting that it is genuine per the definitions provided above. Maybe if the buyer said "it's not genuine because it doesn't have genuine perforations," that might sway the argument in his favor. Or maybe not, per the definitions provided above.

I'm not arguing your definitions. Rather, I'm making a case for how "genuine," as a measure of a stamp's bona fides, might end up being quite inadequate.