Wine Stamp Misidentified On Ebay

This wine stamp is misidentified.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Stamp-Re...refresh=true



It is described as RE196c, which catalogs at $250 for a used copy. It is actually RE196, which catalogs at one dollar used.

RE196 is known with the fractional value (i. e. 4/5) expressed in (for want of a better terminology), "low," "medium," and "high." (Maybe "squished" and "not so squished"?) Here are examples of each:



A genuine RE196c looks like this (from Eric's website):



Note the shape of the base of the "5."

Lastly, RE198 Type I, which is very similar, looks like this:



Though most of these varieties are well described in Scott, sometimes a picture (or two) helps considerably in positive identification.

Jim

p.s. I especially like the wordy lot description:



Brevity at its finest. LOL.

Nice work, a keeper, thanks.

For those interested, there is a very fine 44 page booklet on this series called Series of 1941 Wine Stamps of the US by Ray Bidwell. It's $6 on Eric Jackson's site.

(He means that it's a well done publication, not that it is printed and is in very fine condition).

Jim

Actually it is graded 98J.

Common mistake. I recall seeing one in an auction (a major auction house if I remember) that was also misidentified. I'll have to see if I can find where I saw it.

It was an RE198 offered as a RE196c in Michael Aldrich sale #91.

It's the Type II fraction but with larger letters:



It went for $140.00.

So three different people couldn't tell a RE196c (cat. $250) from a RE198 (cat. $6)??

Amazing.

(The lot describer (Mike Aldrich himself?), the final bidder, and the under bidder).

Sounds like a severe case of wishful-thinkingitis.

Jim

Such misidentification is inexcusable for someone who is/was a specialist in U.S. revenues. But such carelessness in describing has become standard with the Aldrich auctions.

Don't know who the describer is for Kelleher, but with all the recent citations on this blog, such carelessness seems to be the current standard there as well. Such was not the case when Stanley Richmond headed the venerable auction house.

Seems like both firms are in a race to see if they can match the carelessness of ebay listings!

Aldrich says there is a 5 day return and item can be put on extension. Meaning mis describing to the higher incorrect catalogue value is a business decision and buyer beware or smart or dumb.

This is an ever increasing practice by him and as a revenue collector I am not pleased.

This type of business practice, both by the ebay seller as initially identified, and by others, is no doubt the main reason why collectors are not too enthusiastic about calling out misidentified stamps when the error is in the buyers favor.

In fact, speaking for myself, tracking down examples of stamps where the dealer clearly either didn't study his stamp carefully enough, or simply has no clue what he's doing, is pretty much the main focus of my time when I'm at a bourse. There are exceptions of course.

Knowledge is power.

Jim

That's why I really enjoy reading this forum Jim. There are so many knowledgeable people here that seem so happy to share information, all that is needed is a question.

-Willie

What I know about US Wine stamps could be written on the point of a pin and still leave room for a horde of angels to dance. But I was looking at the Linn's Stamp News for Nov 19, 2012, page 32 & 34 and came across the following about another variety of RE196.

I thought the readers of this thread might enjoy seeing these.

The image of the stamps (p34)



The text associate with the stamps (p 32)

I'm sorry if this comes across as one-upmanship to the previous post, but if you want to see a collection of many unique or rare wine stamps, head on over to here:

http://www.rfrajola.com/wines/wines.htm

Jim

Jim,

Not at all. Thanks for posting the Frajola sponsored Exhibit; I had forgotten about it.

Mike

The Aldrich problem is far from new.