Need Help With This One.......

Mr. Portch

Your diplomacy and generous offer must be commended. I hope you continue to provide your expertise to this forum.

The simple fact is that this hobby of ours involves both a long history of forgeries (no shame or disrespect) and also great finds of rarities that push the edge and delight.

Hard to say which it is in this case, and having one scan of just the corner sparked a limited set of initial observations, perhaps handicapped.
the entire cover is way more helpful. i'd like to see the back too.

but its either a valid amazing find or a forgery. best to send it to Greene and see. I too with Gportch would reach into my own pocket and reimburse you if he does not--just to know.

like Yogi Berra said "When you come to the fork of the road--take it!"

Hello again SaveBigBlue
I decided that, rather than wait for your submission to the Greene Foundation, I would do some research on your cover (I am not a specialist in Nova Scotia postal history). Here are my findings:
1. PORT WILLIAMS (Kings County) post office opened in 1858 (from Campbell - Canada Post Offices 1755/1895)
2. PORT WILLIAMS is about 5.2 km from WOLFVILLE (Google maps)
3. No 2-cent stamps, die proofs, plate proofs or specimens were printed in green (Robson Lowe, Jarrett, Unitrade Canada Specialized)
4. The questioned stamp can only be the 2-cent as the 10-cent has a different image of Queen Victoria. (observation only - no references)
5. I have attempted to research the postal rates in place in 1861 (the date of the cancellation) and cannot find any 1-cent letter rates prior to Confederation. If, however, there was no 1-cent rate, they would not likely have printed a 1-cent stamp.
6. The cover should not have qualified for a drop letter rate as it was being delivered from a different post office than the one at which it was received.
7. The real kicker came when I checked the printing dates --- it seems that the "Cents Issues" have an issue date of 1860 - 1863 in the catalogues. The records indicate, however, that the 2-cent was not issued until 1863! Following is a scan of the table of quantities issued as printed on page 391 of THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BRITISH EMPIRE POSTAGE STAMPS 1639-1952 published by Robson Lowe Ltd. in 1973.



The cover has been cancelled 2 years prior to the issue of the stamp!

Most bisected stamps that I have seen are cut diagonally from corner to corner. Your stamp is cut slightly low and to the left which is approximately the position of the SPECIMEN overprint (if that is what the stamp was) position.

On the basis of this research and observations, I continue to stand by my original opinion that the cover is a fake.

I rest my case and look forward to any evidence that refutes my argument.

GJP

Excellent research gportch. Thank you.

It is amazing to an amateur such as myself what simple observation of known facts can prove and produce. Sherlock Holmes to the rescue again.

gportch:
First of all, YES, admittedly being somewhat a "novice" in this exciting field of philately, wherein I posted freely a detailed image (from the invite I discovered in the Canadian Stamps and Covers section, ['...show us your classics...']) I was surprisingly put back bluntly and succinctly by your remarks, and, being the "novice" that I am, was immediately offended by the perceived notion that somehow you where being adversarial in nature toward my ignorance on the subject. In hindsight, having not ever before posted philatelic material and questions of that calibre before in this directoriate I was therefore not prepared for what appeared to be an unwarrented, and provocative attack on "my" integrity and sincerity in opening a dialogue on a matter of some importance to me. This then left me the impression that (given your open suspicians) that some how I was being cast by you of having some hand in what you quickly concluded was a material wrong-doing on my behalf, throwing terms and accusations of some sort of fraudulent activity through some sort of "clever" and calculated "massaging" by a deliberate manipulation, at "post production", of a piece of classic material in a way that left open for others in the forum to be left with but one conclusion - that somehow I am to be viewed with suspicion, simply because the image I freely provided was at the time dubious and misleading in nature. All that said off the cuff without considering the consequences. And you accused me of misleading others through my simple submission of material in pursuit of fair and open exchange of comments and insight. Therefore, having being left vulnerable and unaware, by someone as yourself who enjoys notoriaty and respect for their esteemed position in the philatelic circle I accept your apology.

In conclusion, I will consider your invitation for me to submit this classic, nineteenth century cover for examination to a panel of experts, when I am certain that bias will not play any roll in determining, conclusively that indeed what others in the forum hope to be a new and exciting find of historical significance. Your offer to remove yourself from Green-Shields (sp) is admirable but the stigma left behind, through your untested opinions and remarks on this classic item has tainted any hopes for an unbiased, fair process. Unfortunately, time will have to pass sufficiently for me to hold onto any faith and hope that the process of expert evaluation of this important material will be conducted wholly and justly without suspicion looming publicly through those entrusted with that task. As I see it, the opportunity has been lost temporarily simply by what has transpired. Having recently learned of your membership of such a committee it has become apparent to me that in spite of your offering to sit out in the process, a healing period will and must be expected if my faith is to be restored.

In the meantime, let us agree that it is counterproductive in any open or closed forum to lure unsuspecting "novices", like myself, or any seasoned collector/historian into an open forum, such as what we have here, where unbeknownst to the "novice" at least, that what potentially awaits in the wings are divisive comments that has the potential only to systematically discourage further study and interest in the subject overall.

I am young, and have many years ahead of me to nurture a hobby less adversarial and demeaning. Next time, I'll simply follow my instincts and parental advice and simply dis

Respectfully.....
SaveBigBlue

The above applies to your latest outburst as well.

What are you blathering about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHLelReSWdY

I guess that is the definition of feeling attacked for no reason.

No where did I see Mr.Portch insinuate that SaveBigBlue faked the cover itself.

Now I'm sad.

There are apparently differing opinions about the cover in question.

There are also some remarks that are not thought through.

No one has been accused in any way of making a fake cover. I agree there is a difference of opinion and that is to be expected when you have asked for help identifying an item.

If it is felt strongly that this item needs an expert opinion by all means submit it to the Vincent Graves Greene Foundation for an unbiased opinion. The foundation researches and scientifically examines every item submitted. To imply they will be influenced by what is written here in the forum is not true.

I also noted the year 61 was earlier than the issue date of the two cent stamp. I am no expert on Nova Scotia stamps but good reference material is available.

Differing opinions are often submitted here on the forums. Don't take it as a personal attack if you feel an opinion is different from yours. If you submit the item to get a certificate you can always post the results.

I hope you do submit this item. I would like to know what they determine it to be.

None of the above statements are meant to be an attack on any individual posting on this thread. These are simply my opinions.

SaveBigBlue

This is the last I am going to write on this matter before I consider the issue closed. It is not worth getting into an extended argument, having anyone offended, or embarrassing the other readers of this forum. Contrary, however, to the tone of your rant, I have no agenda, but I cannot allow your accusations and challenges to my honour or integrity to go without a final response.

There was nothing wrong with you posting your original question and photograph of the cover. One sign of a wise man is that, if he doesn't know the answer, he asks someone who may know. If you review your original posting, you ended by asking "can somebody help me identify my bi-sect stamp….." You will note that there were eight responses from other forum members who, to their credit, made sincere and reasonable guesses to assist you.

When I happened upon your thread, I considered that we had recently examined a number of Maritime Province bisects on cover and each of them was a clever fake likely produced with the intention of deceiving a collector. At that stage I merely offered my initial opinion but, at no time did I launch an "unwarranted and provocative attack on your integrity and sincerity", nor did I offer any comment on your "novice" status (which was unknown to me). If you re-read my response, you will notice that I clearly stuck to the issue and refrained from any personal remark or implication.

In my second response, I indicated that I had made the time to research the matter. I used a number of books from my personal reference collection in an attempt to discover any information that might assist in the identification of your stamp. This research was done to satisfy my own curiosity and to lend some factual evidence to the discussion. My analysis was simply based on facts (i.e. a stamp issued in 1863 could not possibly be used on a cover dated MAY 1861 – unless the postmaster inserted the wrong date). Had I not discovered the issue date from two sources, I might not have held such a strong opinion

If you think that I was suggesting that you had anything to do with the manufacture of this cover, I sincerely urge you to re-examine your thought processes. My expression of an opinion has absolutely nothing to do with assessing responsibility and I would never stoop to accusing anybody of wrongdoing without absolute proof positive (and a written legal opinion).

I also respectfully suggest that you re-read all of my comments. At no time did I accuse you of misleading others nor did I imply that you are standing accused of any mischief or wrongdoing.

I assure you that, if you choose to submit this item to the Greene Foundation for an expert opinion, there will be no bias in any direction. I, on behalf of the committee, am offended that you would, in a public forum, suggest that the committee would lower itself to giving a biased opinion to spite you or to protect my opinion. We just don't work that way! The opinion of the committee is respected around the world and it will not be compromised for anything or anybody!

In response to your last comment, it is unreasonable to suggest that either of us was "lured" into participating in this forum. The strength of the forum is that the novice and the experienced collector can participate to the mutual advantage of each and that the novice has the opportunity to draw on the knowledge and experience of the more seasoned participant who, although not always right, may have a valuable contribution to make.

In closing, I encourage you to continue asking questions of the hobby. If you intend to be a successful philatelist it is essential that you question everything. You will discover, however, that the answer to your questions may not be the answer you were expecting nor is it always the answer you hoped for, but that is the way research works in the real world.

Now I've had my rant. Let's forgive, forget and get back to productive and analytic philately.

GJP