R112

Blazenstar that is a fanstastic specimen, I really enjoy the dark color!
Don that is a bunch of fantastic information, I definetly need to checkout that cencus post of yours, always something to learn and look out for.
Southpaw, gotta love those junk lots, every once in a while you can find something nice in them, nice to know there are still deals out there.

-Willie

Well, I can't link an image from photobucket on this site anymore so, no images for you! I would like to know how ebay item #401351876531 gets a cert as a perf 8 R112b when it looks like an ordinary sewing machine perf to me?

Sinclair - can you double-check the item number? I can't find the listing with that number

The number is good.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Scott-R112b...p=true&rt=nc

Sinclair,

I was the underbidder on that lot. It looks almost to be a hybrid sewing machine perf, with horizontal and vertical "perfs" applied by different perforating devices. That's the first PF cert I've seen referencing a specific perf gauge on a sewing machine perf.

In retrospect, I wish I had bid higher.

I bid on it too but I didn't want it nearly as badly as you or even Eric Jackson. I honestly think that calling the strip perf 8 is a bit of a stretch.

I believe that the way the Foundation words their certificates will explain the confusion.

Every word after "described by the applicant" and before "and we are of the opinion that" was copied from the stamp certificate application, while the wording following "and we are of the opinion that" was generated by the Philatelic Foundation.

In this particular case, they neglected to specify whether the strip was, in fact, perf. 8 or "sewing machine" perforations. A bit ambiguous, on a form that is solely intended to remove all ambiguity.

Jim

It's anything but ambiguous. It clearly states that the opinion is that it is a genuine example of what it was submitted as, a perf 8 strip of four. Which it is. Perf 8 is a well known listed variety for this value; the revenue specialists who examined it have all seen examples before and all agreed with the opinion.

Sewing machine perf. = R112b (as on the cert.)

Perf. 8 (also as on the cert.) = R112c

Ergo, as best an example of ambiguous as is possible.

Jim

p.s. A perf. 8 example. Anyone notice any difference in the diameter of the perforated holes in the strip versus this single?

It has been a long time since I bought a new catalogue but since I now note that the perf 8 is actually R112c, perhaps the cert is a bit confusing!

Edit: I was typing while Jim was essentially typing the same thing.

That's just a proofreading error. That would be changed if the owner of the cert made the PF aware of it. The written description is what counts, it is a perf 8 and NOT a sewing machine perf.

With respect,




on a form with around 30 black words on it, the single most relevant word (the catalog number) is an "error"?

The end result being complete confusion with anyone trying to decipher this wording?




I disagree. It may be pin perf. 8, but it isn't perforated 8. See the image above.

Jim

p.s. even the seller was confused:

The outside vertical perforations on both sides are a bit nibbled, which might give some people the impression of it appearing to be a sewing machine perf strip. An examination of the internal perfs plus the top and bottom margins show it is clearly a perf 8 strip. The bottom has some extra paper in some of the perfs, just as the single above has.

I agree. If the PF is actually really saying that the strip is R112c then they got it wrong.

I'm so glad that you are perfect and never make any mistakes. Amazingly enough, this was not the only cert created that month, there were many hundreds of others. All get proofread, and since no one else in the world is perfect, occasionally mistakes do get past despite every attempt to prevent it.