Canada 2c Orange Registration Double Perf

I have picked this up in a bulk lot of BOB. I don't see reference to it in SG or Scott, I'm waiting for my Unitrade to arrive.



Any ideas as to likely value?

Nice manuscript cancel. What I find interesting is that the double-perfing, so to speak, is partial.

Also interesting is that the double vertical perfs are symmetrical rather than asymmetrical. I would have expected the latter.

I have no idea regarding possible value, sorry. But very nice find!

I had a much smaller Pin Perforation Error in an earlier thread

https://goscf.com/t/29017

I think that the pins just broke during the perforation run, and continued for some time. Just an interesting item, EFO, I would think.

Agreed. It is more of an EFO type of stamp.

Chimo

Bujutsu

Cool! Yea... that's all I have to add.

Forgive my ignorance, what does EFO stand for?

Actually, good question.

EFO = error, freak, oddity

k

IMO, the value is lower than that of a normal stamp.

For decades, collectors paid premiums for U.S. revenues with "freak perfs" until it was discovered that many of them were artificially created long after the fact by enterprising dealers/collectors with access to original perfing equipment. Now, freak perfs on U.S. revenues are considered punch cancels, i.e., have a negative effect on value. Some ignorant dealers still try to get premiums for them, but virtually no one bites.

Bottom line: There's no way to know *when* the extra perfs were created.

It's an interesting curiosity, but I wouldn't expect to get rich.

I agree entirely that someone owned this stamp for 140 years before it got to me. However, the source, being an untouched hoard with nothing added since the 1930s (and I have purchased several lots from the same source) gives me confidence that it is not a recent occurrence.

The stamp is 2mm wider (including the additional perfs) than any of the other 300+ in the accumulation so I don't think it has been recut.

Perf oddities are a more valuable flaw than the normal stamps in most circumstances in Australian stamps but I acknowledge the market for items such as "OS" perfs have been damaged by the creation of fakes, frauds and phonies.

I apprecisate all the feedback, I was trying the guage the correct value for the stamp and also to see if anyone had any recollection or record of something similar (which helps the cause for establishing the bona fides of the stamp).

If anyone has any info, I'd be grateful. I'll list it on ebay with a $0.99 start

Have you checked the perf measurements?
Do the extra perfs have the same measurement as the others?

Here's a guess as to the cause.

The perforator had a problem and stopped partway down the sheet. the wheels on these were adjustable (hence the varying sizes of the registration stamps).

They got the perforator back up and running and ran the sheet through again (at least vertically) in order that the stamps could be separated. The second run is the outside perfs (ie. they ran it through vertically with pins/wheels slightly wider apart.

When Panama's first stamps came out they were making counterfiets within a few years. It could be that the perfing was the result of philatelic phoolery 80+ years ago. Either way it is an interesting piece.

There is really no way to know for sure. Lot's of fakes out there. That's why I asked about the perfs, sometimes they can be helpful, though not definitive in sorting out the fakes.

Visually the perfs are identical, I hadn't bothered to measure them. I have used my SG Instanta perf guage, the stamp is 11.9 x 11.9 all round, including the double perf.

I noticed that the perf may be same size, but isn't stramge that they are narrow spacing (the 2 sets of 7 holes, are inside the complete vertical perforation, so if it was a vertical shift of the perforator, it does not explain the narrow horizontal distance. Looks like it was the result of 2 different perforaters, may be fake?

Gilles, my theory was that the first run stopped part-way and so they re-perfed the entire sheet vertically, but set the pins slightly wider apart on the second run.

It could still be a fake, but the fact that the perfs measure the same (11.9) means it could also be a genuine error. This was also the most common perf for these stamps.

There is a good book on the Registered letter stamps "Canada's Registered Mail 1802 - 1909" (Horace Harrison, George Arfken and Harry Lussey)

They mention that the machines used to perforate these stamps were far from foolproof and examples of anomalous perforations are not uncommon. They illustrate both a 2c and 5c with double vertical perfs (though not partial as in this example).

I personally think the error is genuine, especially in light of the above.