Is This A Genuine Scott #13? Opinions Please

I'm not sure, I just get the feeling its been trimmed of perfs because it looks long, any assistance gratefully accepted!

I'd be skeptical. The top frame line appears to be incomplete (as it should be on #13), but it does not appear to have the required three pearls at lower right, and the bottom part of the lower left shell is conveniently trimmed. A genuine #13 would have an almost complete lower left shell, whereas a #35 would have a complete lower left shell. I'd say from the photo that it is not impossible that this is #13, but I'd lean toward trimmed #35 without a closer look.

thanks Dudley I was thinking the same thing, then the wide margin at the top and lower right with no dents from the perforations has thrown me a bit! possibly #15?

Lawrence, it is either #13 or a trimmed #35. Neither #14 nor #15 would have the complete shell at lower right. #35 can come with pretty wide margins.

thanks Dudley, I see what you mean, I'll keep researching but until I have confirmation, it's a 35!

IMO I would say the stamp is a Type 1, not Type V; unless the actual design has been altered(on bottom). I believe it's a Type 1, not V because the bottom curved line looks broken & thinner(as found on Type I, II, & III). The bottom curved line on Type V is thicker & complete. The design is too tight to even tell if there's 3 pearls or not. The outer curves on the shells look completely full too(not always, but Type V will usually have shells partly missing vertically). Also (again not always), Type V typically shows blurring at the top, bottom, or both - above or below the design. Just my observation... compare the bottom curved lines of known examples of Type 1 & V. The stamp could possibly have been perforated once(I doubt it) & trimmed down. Type 1 stamps only come from bottom row & tend to be tall (vertically). Hope this helps some!

Thanks JMT406 for your valued opinion, I didn't realise the bottom row were taller The more I look at it under my loupe and zoom the scan, I can see no sign of perforation, so I am leaning towards a Genuine type 1 #13.

The length was throwing me but now with that post I understand the stamp a bit better

How about this one...?

I agree with JMT406 that it looks like a genuine type I to me-- for the same reasons. #13 or it could obviously be a trimmed #31.

Sinclair, I believe yours is a genuine type I also. Scott #13. It clearly shows three pearls at the lower right and there is only one position on plate 2 of the type V stamps that have all three pearls on the right. Also there is a guide dot at the lower right margin, which are only present on the bottom row type 1 stamps from plate 1 (multiple type V plate 2 positions have lower guide dots, but this stamp isn't type V).

Incidentally this "dry printing" appearance (my label--I might be misusing the term; it looks like what my printer spits out when running out of ink) to your stamp shows up a lot with the type V stamps. I assume it has something to do with the quality of the green ink since I have not seen it with other contemporaneous issues. Has anyone else noticed similar dry printing type appearances on other stamp issues during that period?

I agree with the Type I part.

lovely stamp!

Agreed - The guide dot where it is, is a big reveal, and also the right side ornament completeness eliminates Ty V.

The type is pretty obvious but this stamp is almost certainly not a genuine imperf but rather a trimmed #31.

Edit: Of course I am talking about the one I posted.

pardon my ignorance but as a newbie you speak of guide dots?

Where are they on a stamp?
I have just purchased a US Specialty Perforation Grill Multigauge and that mentions guide dots too

You got me on this one Winston... your stamp looks like a Scott #13 imperf. You can see some of the design of next stamp to the right. Are those blind perfs in between or was it massive misperf shift. Help??? How do you know the perfs were trimmed? Thanks in advance

I observed no blind perforations on this stamp, when I viewed it under 15X & 45X magnification. I sold the stamp over a month ago. The stamp is poorly cut, but I don't believe it was perforated. I would have kept the stamp, if it wasn't poor. The position is 99R1; with "Curl in left X" variety. The guide dot found bottom right, is part of 100R1. I can share more photographs from my original listing if desired(can't seem to get image optimizer to work now).