Do You Think These Are Legitimate Bisects?

These three CDVs (as one lot) just closed on ebay. I think they might have legitimate bisects of R38c. What do you think? By the way, I was not the winner of the lot.

Do you mean these were posted, like postcards? There's nothing written on them, including an address.

There was a period when there was a tax on CDV photographs. Photographs over $1.00 had a tax due of 5¢. There was no 10¢ tax rate that I know of, so this would appear to be a proper rate, assuming that the photographs sold for over $1.00. Additionally, the cancellations on them appear correct for a bisected stamp. The "X" is wholly contained on the half of the stamp, rather than spanning the whole stamp and then being cut (leaving a "V" cancellation). Aldo, the gum stains are consistent with the half-stamps being on the backs of the photographs for a long period of time.

Looks as though they might be good uses of bisected revenue stamps, but hard to be definitive about that from scans.

Chip

(PS: see: http://www.stamp-collecting-world.c...ngcards.html )

I vote fake.

As background, Richard Friedberg's "Introduction to United States Revenue Stamps" give a good summary of this revenue tax. To help pay for the civil war, photographs were taxed from August 1, 1864-August 1, 1866 based on the retail price of the photo. 2 cents tax for up to 25 cents sale price, 3 cents tax for 26-50 cents retail, 5 cents tax 51-$1 retail, and an additional 5 cents tax for each $1 or fraction thereof, etc. (So one can find 10 cent tax stamps and higher on larger photos.) Photographs of this small CDV size typically are seen with a 2 cent stamp and occasionally with a 3 cent stamp. It is HIGHLY unusual for run of the mill photos such as these to require 5 cents tax, nor are they tied or canceled properly with date, etc. Be glad you were not the winner. These have none of the characteristics of a legitimate bisect use.

I was watching this lot and almost pulled the trigger. If the lot had went much lower, I probably would have taken a chance, but I get real nervous when a CDV bisect doesn't have the photographer's information listed.

One thing that did give me pause was that the signature on the first CDV did seem to go onto the CDV, thus tying the stamp to the CDV.

John Becker has summarized the basic facts very well. I have not seen any carte visites with 5¢ tax stamps. Doesn't say they don't exist, but .... One has to say that the three photos seem to have traveled together. Children on one, the presumed father on the second, and the three together on the third. If the bisects were genuine, you would expect the top half on one of the photos and the bottom on one of the others. My eye does not detect a matching top and bottom.

Years ago, I had the occasion to go through a shoe box full of such an accumulation. Most had 2¢ stamps, a very few with 3¢. But fully a third of the stamps were dated outside the tax period (August 1, 1864- August 1, 1866); in other words they had been added, presumably to make the photos more "valuable." I do not know how representative of such chicanery this shoebox was, but it alerted me to the realities of our hobby.

Ron Lesher

I have seen a few legitimate 5 cent uses on carte de visite's, but these do not appear to be realistic; I do not think the clothing styles are old enough for one thing.

I didn't see this lot, but I would have not touched them with a 10-foot pole.

There are legitimate bisects on CDVs, but there usually (not always) is something either tying the stamp fragment or recognizable photographer initials. These have neither.

More importantly, the 5c rate was usually reserved for oversized photos or ones that had a lot of work done to them (extensive hand tinting, etc.).

The 5c Playing Cards is frequently found on oversized photos.

For normal, run-of-the-mill CDVs, there would have been no reason for a 5c tax unless the photographer was saving time by affixing one stamp on a group rather than on each individual item... but then that works against the authenticity of these items even more.

I vote bogus.

What did the lot sell for?

I've lost the link, but it went for about $175.