Lot 4599 In Kelleher Sale 701

Does this stamp look like a trimmed perforated copy to anyone else but me?

Nothing about it encourages genuineness: the ink color, the date of the cancel, the margins, etc.

Jim

p.s. Sorry, just found out that this is a duplicate post. Please ignore all comments.





http://db.kelleherauctions.com/php/...701&lot=4599

The top isn't even cut straight and the bottom shows some slight remnants of perforation holes.

They seem to be busy destroying any credibility that the firm once had for revenues.

That stamp was discussed (debunked) in a thread a few weeks ago. See about 4 posts down the thread..
https://goscf.com/t/54643&SearchTerms=kelleher

Still, we never heard what Kelleher had to say. And the other thread has 2 posts that refute it; no debunking there, in my opinion.

Color: bad original scan or a scanner doing interpretive dance here. With the heavy blur and dot at the right side, I'd expect a wash of the ink color overall. The apparent brilliant white paper is just too brilliant. The orange here is too pale and washy, not a first issue revenue color.

Kindly tell me why February 1871 is a bad date (at least, that's what it looks like to me). Were the first issues invalidated January 1st? Too late for part perfs? I'd expect legal offices to be able to use up existing stamps before buying new ones; a dollar is a dollar. Now memory kicks in: yes, 1871 is awfully late for a part perf. Troublesome to me is the cancel. It looks like it's aniline ink and that type of pencil apparently was not patented until 1877.


Not a problem by itself. Part perfs were cut apart with scissors.


All I can see are two dents under "LA", too close together to be perf 12. What am I missing? Further the easiest starting point for a fake would be an imperf. The perfed stamp candidate would have to be a jumbo (this one is slightly wide, too), and one probably from a sheet margin.

If the perfs are genuine, the horizontal margin width should be measurable against scans of blocks. Of course, that still does not eliminate a trimmed top or bottom margin taller-than-usual perfed stamp. Can the blur and dot on this stamp give us a position?

Nonetheless, it could be a part perf but not a proven/provable part perf. The margins don't look big enough to be a R66b without question. Then the only satisfactory example would be a vertical pair. Some of you then won't like the singles passed by the PF here (last on page 2, 3rd on page 2):
http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp
In any case, if sold (rather iffy), it's going for a cert anyway.

And nobody here has mentioned the pulled perf.

Apparently their auction manager completely ignored my explanation as to how the stamp cannot be genuine, as they haven't pulled the lot. I was under the impression that some other people had reported the lot to them as well. Money and ethics make strange bedfellows it would appear.

You don't even need to look at the margins. That bright color is distinctly a late state printing shade and the cancel date is 1871. Legit part perfs would be a pale reddish brown shade with a cancel date in 1863 or early 1864 at the latest.

I'd bet my pension against the stamp being genuine.




Actually, no it couldn't.

There is no possibility that this stamp is a genuine part perf. Shade, impression, cancel date, margins, and I guarantee paper are wrong. This was a perforated stamp and someone took a scissors and trimmed it top and bottom. There is zero chance of any other possibility.

What a delightful discussion. But it is time not to hide this discussion here on this blog. Let's get the discussion into The American Revenuer for the revenue collector audience. I am teaching a course on philatelic forgeries the day before the opening of MILCOPEX. Let's get a feature article into Linn's. The ignorance, greed, and ethics of this situation must be exposed big time.

The examples you mention on the last page of the PF group were examined over 50 years ago when dealers were doing the certs; they would have no chance today. Even the pairs would be heavily scrutinized and might prove problematical.

The Kelleher Lot has been withdrawn.