Possible Error Stamps.

I can use some feedback as to whether you guys think the stamps are error varieties. The second scan is postage due varieties. All feedback is appreciated.

Regards,
Mike L.

None of your stamps appear to be errors. By definition an "error" is a mistake in the stamp printing and/or design itself. None of your examples fit that criteria.

1st Scan

UL appears to be a detached selvage from a stamp; no collectible value.

UR appears (8.4c bulk rate) appears to be miscut (probably by a machine). Note that bulk rate stamps were used by mailing houses and they rarely were detached by hand. A machine was probably misaligned to the perforations and cut the stamp in the wrong place(s).

LL (4c Lincoln) stamp is interesting as it appears to have a missing perforation on the right side. Since the stamp is quite common and it only shows a small piece of the stamp next to it, there would not be much of a premium value attached to it. Some specialist collectors would consider it quite collectible though.

LR (15c Holmes) stamp has perforations misaligned but not significantly enough to qualify it as a misperf. Ultimately, collectors would consider that example less desirable than a well centered stamp.

2nd Scan

The four stamps shown in the second scan are all poorly centered examples. The straight edges shown on a couple of those examples are merely the position of the stamp as it was taken from a sheet. They add no value and essentially are less desirable to collectors than a perfectly centered stamp with perforations all around.

(Incidentally, the 2c Sullivan Expedition stamp (second scan, UR) is not a postage due stamp but was a regular postage issue (Scott 657)).

I agree, not errors!

Let me ask you a question, do you have a Scott Catalog? If not most if not all Libraries have a Scott Catalog. Makes for good reading.

Cheers

Dave

OK I want to thank everyone for their input, once again it was an education. And Dave, I think I will purchase a Scott catalog.

Mike L.

I do find the last Tampa, FL precancel interesting in the fact that the lines are not even close to parallel. Probably not much extra value, but I would keep it.

Totally disagree... the first top 4 stamps
are positively ALL EFO's... in fact if the
right hand stamp of the Lincoln 4 cent was
there, it would be worth a tidy sum as an
imperf between... and, to an EFO collector
it's probably valuable to some degree as is...

There will always be some disagreement over what constitutes an "error" and what constitutes an "EFO" (error, freak, or oddity).

R1S1 (selvedge) -- don't see anything special about this selvedge, simply looks like badly torn; what do you find odd about it?

R1S2 (8.4¢ piano) -- shows slightly displaced Bureau Precancel bar gap, not unusual; the miscut is not a production issue, but caused by the stamp roll becoming misaligned in the automated cutting/affixing machine of the mass mailer

R2S1 (4¢ Lincoln) -- very unlikely to be a single from an horizontal imperforate between pair, and would have to be full pair in order to prove it; much much more likely a right side single from a miscut booklet pane of 6, which would make it a production freak

R2S2 (15¢ Holmes) -- to be considered a freak, many EFO collectors want either a complete design element clearly appearing on the opposite side, or at least 10% misperf, but there is no rule etched in stone; it's a fine line between misperf and poorly perfed; since your stamp meets neither "criteria", I would consider it a poorly centered stamp

R3S1 (5¢ postage due) -- the MP is either overinked or worn/damaged, this would be considered by some to be a minor freak

R3S2 (2¢ Sullivan) -- again, I would consider this a poorly centered stamp

R4S1 (2¢ postage due) -- need a precancel specialist to chime in, but to me it looks like the top bar at the end of the hand-held precanceling device was damaged, so I would consider it a freak; I'm open to correction on this one since I don't know that much about precancels

R4S2 (3¢ postage due) -- again, I would consider this a poorly centered stamp

JMHO

k

EFO = error, freak, oddity - a diminishing sequence of importance and premium of value.
These are certainly not errors. Some might classify some of them as freaks. However, I would class them as oddities of poor production (at best). I agree with wt1's summary.

I don't know exactly waht caused the bar printing on the back of the stamp, but it is interesting.

8.4c, look like a misperf to start with, but then perhaps a cut coil strip gone bad? Hmmm?

4c may be a nice imperf between, not having the second stamp complete is a bummer, and a scan of the back and front up close and a real-life good .lighting angled look is best to determine.

15c I personally would call a misperf, but some might like more of the second stamp showing. Gotta start somewhere and have reference material though.

5c - not sure, may be shifted over, all the stamp design is, so off-centered, but the precancel is too. Interesting to say anyway.

2c is a misperf again for me, but probably needs more second stamp to be considered worth more than an ordinary stamp price + a little bit for the pleasure of the misperf.

The 8.4¢ is perforated normally -- the perforations are pretty much where they should be. The stamp has simply been cut incorrectly by the auto-affixer. Puzzler does make a good point that perhaps the cause may have been a poorly cut/positioned leader in the coil roll.

The 4c Lincoln is a single from a slightly miscut booklet pane, not part of an imperf between pair.

eyeonwall...i am having a hard time understanding why you say it is coming from a booklet...If it came from a booklet and some one trimmed off the right hand stamp, hey...it is still imperfered to me..I agree with puzzler on this one..Just my humble opinion.

I agree with eyeonwall. My initial reaction, as I stated in my first post, is that it is a right-side stamp from a miscut booklet pane of 6. Booklets are cut from a much larger press sheet. It is not unusual to have extra large/small margins on sides, or even parts of the adjacent booklet pane when they are miscut. The prized miscuts are those showing the old BEP plate numbers, which were normally completely trimmed off during the manufacture of the booklets.

Without a 2nd complete stamp and perforations on the right side, in cannot possibly be certified as an imperforate between error. And trust me, this type of miscut booklet showing parts of the adjacent stamp is not rare. They sometimes have a minor premium (a few US dollars, depending on the amount of miscut). A few decades ago, I had one dealer who used to sell me the complete miscut booklet panes at face value.

That is all neat and good to know. Thanks.

Wert - khj said it pretty well. The little extra part stamp was not something a customer or collector trimmed off, if came from the stamp that was supposed to be on the booklet pane next to it.

Wert, here is a slightly miscut booklet pane - even more miscut than the original stamp under discussion. These are fairly common.