A "Copy" Of Czj18

I don't really know what to think of this, and I feel foolish asking, but... someone is selling a copy of CZJ18 on ebay.

Is this simply a poor choice of words or a brutally honest statement? Is this how someone describes a stamp? A copy?

I suppose I ask only because of the smudge on the upper right of the stamp. Or perhaps I've been reading too much about forgeries...




I don't mind if you call me paranoid.

I wouldn't necessarily call it "brutally honest", but more of a morally honest statement. The seller wants to be clear that there is no deception and that what he is offering is not a real specimen, but a copy of the real stamp.
The unfortunate outcome of this could well be someone getting this piece at a substantial discount, and then later offering it as a "real" piece in order to defraud. (of course, I don't collect US and have no idea as to the value of a genuine piece, so this my not hold true)

I have no knowledge of US stamps, so don't know if this is genuine or not, but where is the seller based?

I ask this because in the UK, the use of the term 'copy' does not necessarily mean a reproduction. For example the 'phrase 'a nice copy' can simply mean a fine example of a particular stamp.

It's not a "poor" use of words or "brutally honest".

COPY in this case means "example" The seller has an example of J18 that he has for sale. Copy is commonly used, at least in US English, as a synonym of example. I collect the 2c 1932 Lake Placid Olympic Winter Games stamp of 1932. I probably have 250 copies of the stamp. That means I have 250 examples, not reproductions.

Glenn, in as much as "copy" can lead to misunderstandings--as it has--I would call it a poor choice of words.

Assuming the stamp is authentic, does anyone find the smudge to be of interest?

I agree with Glenn. "Copy" has an established meaning in philately and any misunderstanding comes from unfamiliarity with that meaning. As for the smudge, it looks like dramatic over-inking to me. The O in ONE CENT and the bottom of the numeral show similar effects. Forgeries usually have subtle flaws in the design, rather than this sort of inking and printing issue.

Thanks for your two cents here, cj. (Or should I say one cent?) I wish I knew more about the actual production of stamps.

Incidentally, it's nice to think that stamp collectors might agree on at least one thing.

Reminds me of the tale of the Dowager who walks into a stamp shop & produces a dog-eared Penny Black stating that it is a very valuable stamp. The proprietor states that, no, madame, it is relatively common & that he has forty copies in stock. To which she triumphantly replies, yes, yours are copies but mine is GENUINE!