Double And Triple Transfers

Gorgeous strip !

Awesome!!

Hello all,
I would like to know if this is referred to as a Dbl transfer or a dbl impression ala 26e?
From my study it appears a double transfer from position 87R15
although I might be wrong.
I picked this up for a song.
There is a line through the words and doubling of the circles?
I cannot find another in an unused condition on siegel power search?
It is fine unused with gum MH (not sure if regummed)

Yes, that is 87R15, a double transfer variety. Scott #26. It looks like original gum to me.

For some reason, the fact that 87R15 is quite obtainable and that Plate 15 produced more impressions than any other plate, has had no tempering effect on the ridiculously high catalogue value.

My 2015 Scott only has the value for 26e double impression at 2.5k. Doesn't show a value for an unused double transfer (which would be less).

Had a look at specialist catalogue, only list as $550 used. No price for mint?

There are many items in the Scott Specialized catalog without values and are either blank or have a dash. This indicates that they are either not known or are so infrequently traded no value can be assigned to the item.

By the way, welcome to the Forum!

There is a value specifically for 87R15 in the catalogue. I would be surprised if it has come down to $550. It is $2500 in my 2010 catalogue.

Although they may look similar, a double impression is not the same as a double transfer. A double impression is a printing variety and a doubly transfer is a plate variety.

it is for used. Not sure for mint?
2016 values:

Hey Gabe, funny bumping into you here in this Forum. Not sure what catalog your post is from. This is from my Scotts 2016 Specialized showing the 87R15 used value to be $2,500 US.



Did you ever send in your 87R15 for a cert? I sent mine off yesterday to PF.

The $2,500 is current as of the 2018 U.S. Specialized. Also note that it has changed from nonitalic to italic, meaning that there is very little actual sales data and/or the pricing can fluctuate wildly.

The Scott catalogue grossly over-values 87R15. Plate 15 was the longest lived plate of all of the 3c 1857's. Therefore, 87R15 is not rare. I think anybody that has to fork over the PF fee on an item like this will eventually realize that the fee was not 5.5% but rather 30-50% of actual value and the collector (or dealer) gets screwed. So sad. So sad that I am the only one that ever says anything about it.

Don, I must respectfully disagree with your assumption that 87R15 is "grossly" over-valued. I may be delusional, but have always believed scarcity (and sometimes novelty) determined value in stamp collecting. Searching the PF database as well as doing a Siegel powersearch I can find only 4 examples each of used copies of 87R15, no unused at all. Compare that to the oft mistaken 423a or 423D where on Siegel alone one can find 7 pgs and 4 pgs respectively of listings. Or the pricey 317 and 318, with 10 pgs each of sales listings.

I suppose a person could argue that these just listed stamps were separate issues and not just a variety of an issue and should somehow command a better price because of it. Then explain Scott #8, and even sub category pos. 99R2 compared to Scott #7 values. I am likely incorrect but wonder if Sc #26, 87R15, must also exist in a non-double transfer state as I don't understand how the same double transfer 'error' would happen with each and every successive printing with that plate. If I am mistaken, then who is hording the vast supply of these?

Double transfers happen when the plate is created or re-entered, so every printing of that plate will show a double transfer in any position that has one. I have a #10 with this double transfer, or at least one very similar.

Thamks rev for clearing that up for me. Still, I wonder where are these supposed copies of 87R15 then? You'd think somewhere over the last 160 years a value would have been established for an unused copy then.