PSE Graded "98" Mistake? Scott #7 Versus #9. Upcoming Sr Auction

This is stamp discussed on recent thread as a MAJOR identification mistake:

It is identified as a Scott #9, graded superb 98, by PSE with 2016 cert.

I don't believe it is a #9.

I'm not sure what happened here.



I would like to say that Schuyler has awesome catalogs. Their descriptions of postal history are unmatched. I assume the mistake is on PSE side, not auction house in this case. But I could be wrong?

The stamp looks like 4R1L, Scott 7, if I am correct. This stamp has been discussed before on scf. It is probably the most "important" stamp on Plate 1L, as it is only stamp on plate with no recut. The recuts are what distinguish plate 1L from the rest!... It deserves more respect than what it got here. This copy could be the best centered single 4R1L in the world, yet it got no respect?? (other than as a misidentified 98!). By the way, I think its more like a 95 (LOL with sarcastic tone) but I'm not an expert grader.

If I owned the stamp I would be disappointed in the process here as I believe the stamp sold as a
graded 98 scott #9 versus a graded 98 4R1L scott #7 could easily change the multiple of what its worth by 2-2.5x or more.

I'll largely re-post what I posted in the other thread, for convenience.

Yea, looks like they missed that one.
The top recut line in the stamp below it, no doubt caused some confusion. When looking for recuts, I often look at an adjacent stamp, for multiples, or large margined singles, like this one. So that's ok, but the error was in not going back to the original, and checking to see if it is really recut, now that you know its plate 1Late (from the recut beneath it).

This also brings up a long-standing issue I've had with the Neinken book. That is that for some stamps that get special drawings, those drawings don't always show things like: guide dots or side ornament shortness, and sometimes other things. On page 137 of Neinken, you can see that pos 4 and 5 don't show guide dots.

Definitely 4R1L

Just to put some closure on this thread, I won the auction for this item at Schuyler. I sent the stamp in to Richard Doporto, and his certificate confirmed that this is indeed 4R1L, and that the PSE certificate was incorrect.



I then resubmitted it in to PSE, with the Doporto certificate, and they fixed their opinion:

http://www.psestamp.com/Cert/1336992/

Well done MattTodd. Thanks for update!

And by the way, you probably own the nicest used copy of this stamp 4R1L in existence.

Congrats

A while back I shredded a new PSE Cert for #9 Plated to Position 5R1L(I didn't waste my $ on cert). I had a new Plating cert made up, it also was #7 Position 4R1L.