Two Very Rare Revenue Imperfs

A very interesting response.

Both of the stamps that I showed are not currently listed in the Scott Specialized catalog. Both are not described in any philatelic literature, as far as I am aware. I believe that both are unique stamps, or nearly so, and they have not previously been illustrated anywhere, again as far as I can tell. I decided to include them in this discussion of second issue perforation varieties as they might help in some fashion to figure out how these various varieties came to be.

Rather than any questions as to their provenance, price paid and when and where, condition, and so on, the only real concern is apparently to examine their certification and then (presumably) to discuss the relative merits of who exactly analyzed the stamp and when.

To answer the question, one stamp was certified by the Philatelic Foundation, the other was verbally certified by Eric Jackson as genuine at the time of purchase. To be honest, I have no interest in scanning certificates, nor in obtaining current, written proof of some kind to appease any authenticity questions. With all due respect, either take my word for it that they are real and are as I claim them to be, or don't.

At some point I will submit them to Scott for future inclusion in their catalog. I have not yet done so, though I have had a few other stamps added relatively recently (for example, R53f and LOX45).

As I said, an interesting response.

Jim

Jim....By the time you wrote that lenghtly reply you
could has uploaded the images of the certs.

Simply out of curiosity and not knowing he revenue market, why would someone fake a stamp that doesn't exist?

Jim,

Why so defensive? You put forth the fact that they were certified in your original post without providing any specificity. Given that neither are recognized/reported varieties, the obvious first question is who certified them? Why wouldn't someone ask that question?

How do you know that Bart or myself would not have inquired about the other aspects once you answered the first inquiry?

As far as to the price paid, I would never ask that publicly, as it is none of my business and even asked privately is considered to be in poor taste unless you know the other party.

There are any number of revenues unlisted in Scott. Heck, just in the areas of 1st issue plate varieties and bisects alone, there are gobs of them.

If legit, your 2 stamps shown are wonderful pieces.

Regarding your rather abrupt comment "With all due respect, either take my word for it that they are real and are as I claim them to be, or don't.", (1) that's not the way philatelic scrutiny/skepticism works (sellers/owners claim things every day that are only in their own best interests and run counter to facts; also how can we know your credentials and the veracity of your assessment?), and (2) I honestly hope your intent was not to come off as arrogant as that sounded.

-Dan

P.S. Did you see my question about the R115 "imperf vertically"? Are you saying you believe it to be the equivalent of a 1st issue part perf or simply an EFO? Is it a single or multiple?

P.P.S. A search of the PF cert database shows neither an R107 with sewing machine perfs nor an R115 perforated 8. You never said which stamp was certed by the PF, so I don't know which one you are referring to.

Now 1 is certified....

Next post....???
His brothers, wifes uncle "said so".

Not really hard to post certs???

"the only real concern is apparently to examine their certification and then (presumably) to discuss the relative merits of who exactly analyzed the stamp and when".

Those are legitimate questions, particularly when discussing previously unrecorded items.
I assume that the PF cert is a very old one or a very new one (although I have seen neither of these items before), since neither of these is currently up on the PF site.
For the record, I see no reason to doubt either of these items. It would be extremely unusual to see margins large enough to fake a perf 8 from a normal R115, and anyone faking the sewing machine perf would do a much better job relative to the design, assuming it could actually be done on today's equipment.
As far as taking your word for it, I second Dan's statement.

"Simply out of curiosity and not knowing he revenue market, why would someone fake a stamp that doesn't exist"?

As has been stated before, there are new revenue discoveries made every year; I myself have found two previously unknown items in the last two years. A plausible fake would create a unique item that might have great auction value. And unlisted sewing machine perfs are out there, I have a 50 cent lease with sewing machine perfs, and I am sure there must be others.

Kevin, Eric Jackson saying it is good is not exactly "his brother's wifes uncle said so". He is one of the foremost revenue dealers in the country with about 35 years experience almost exclusively as a revenue stamp dealer. A VERY knowledgeable man.

revcollector.....YES...I know who EJ is.
My point I was making is TD stated he had BOTH
items certified.
Word of mouth in a transaction is not good enough
for certification.

For you it is not, obviously for him it is. If and when you own it you can get a cert. Since he owns it.........

I'm not the perf guy but the perfs on R115 seem to be all over the place. I can tell you the R115 is a nice double transfer, notice the small "dashes" between F-T-Y- of "FIFTY". Position 66 I believe.

Good catch Karl. I missed that the first time around. Those perfs are wandering everywhere. I still would like to see the cert in question...

I saw that as well, but if you search the pf site and look at certs 515692 and 500676 you will see that they are also "all over the place" to some degree. Remember, this is a private perf and was done on some kind of sewing or punching device, perhaps for leather or metal, not on a larger hole stamp perforating machine.
http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...=&certsymbol[]=All&subtype[]=All&certcolor=&keyoper=both&keyword=&recsperpage=10&pscolumn=default&sortord=DESC&calledfrom=lkp

Perhaps I should mention for those not aware, I am one of the people who certify revenues for the PF.

Attached is the certificate. Is everyone happy now? :)

I have also included an image of another Scott-unlisted sewing machine perf. variety. I included the cert. as well.

My forum account does not apparently allow uploaded images larger than 100 Kb in size. To get both certificates to be under 100 Kb, I had to play with the resolution and color settings for some time. Which is one of the reasons why I did not include the certificate in the first place...

Jim