Scott 315 Used Candidate. Real Or Not?

The following stamp was found in an envelope in an old collection. No value paid for it (.51 average price for collection).

I've looked at it under a microscope and find no hint of perforations. The closest I could come was on the bottom edge but the roughness is more in keeping with a duller pair of scissors than a perf remnant.

The stamp measures 21mm across at the narrowest point; the largest jumbo I have measures 21mm at its widest point.

Finally, an examination of the edges shows there is ink from the cancellation on the edge. I can't get that to scan or I would provide a scan.

Everyone knows what Scott says about these. Worth the a shot at a certficate or not?

Can you examine the edges under high magnification? Could the edges be painted?

Chances are it will not get a good certificate from any of the four major US Expertizing services (PF, APEX, PSE and PASAG). The right margin is way too close and the top margin is also probably not large enough. Additionally, based on your scan I do not think it is the correct shade. That being said scans are rarely accurate for color so judging the actual shade on a scan is dangerous.

I wasn't planning on sending it in for the reasons you listed, William. Even though it may be a real 315, the best I could probably ever get would be "No Opinion" from any of the services.

I'll keep as an example, with a note in the inventory for my heirs, as to what it is and what it would never get a certificate as.

I love rare stamps. I love ebay. I think ebay has discovered more rare stamps than were ever sold from auction houses. Something you can do is check out the ends of the stamp. Your looking to see several things. The two that come to mind on this stamp is all on the right side. If looks like it would have been trimmed. It appears cancel marks don't go to the end. It looks like after stamp was trimmed a emery board or sandpaper was used to touch up the cut. I see a very thin white strip and looks as if thr cancel was then filled in my hand. Also from the photo it looks like you can see just a tad part of the perf holes lower right.

Of course I can't confirm this but it would stand out with a microscope if I'm right.

Not ready to say one way or the other but something's for you to check out.

Hi, would be possible to see the reverse side of the stamp in question?

Extremely unlikely to be genuine. As stated above, the margins are FAR too small.

Measuring is helpful but not 100%. For reference on the stamp if the stamp measures smaller than the perforated cousin then you can bet it is counterfeit or altered. However early classics were perforated funny or it could come from a corner making it a jumbo. Thus is could measure correctly. I'm not going to commit to thin boarders without a measurement though agreed they are suspect.

My understanding is that if it is not at least 21.5mm x25 mm then it stands no chance of being certified. wtcrowe - can you verify that this is correct?
Thanks
Don

I think the point that bothers me the most is how it is centered. It is centered like a poorly centered stamp. The imperf stamps I have don't tend to be centered with two adjacent large margins and two adjacent small margins. Especially with the large margins being close to equal size and the small ones also being close to equal size. It just looks like a stamp that once had perforations, even if you can't see any. If you go to Seigels page of #315 (and I know these are the nicer copies out there, they look really different:

https://siegelauctions.com/lot_grd....page=10&win=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/613xCUZ%252BBNL._RC%7C01evdoiemkL.css%2C01pVbSC-RPL.css%2C01K%2BPs1DeEL.css%2C31ucbE7hMML.css%2C01ewogTCD%2BL.css%2C11Q%2BQzSCWIL.css%2C21XNrWobyaL.css%2C11g4ZqMHAkL.css%2C21Pd9HarLOL.css%2C01UFhV6phUL.css%2C21znlrDU3OL.css%2C01LJGuGyVyL.css%2C11Uut0mIL8L.css%2C11vZhCgAHbL.css%2C21RNFprmuBL.css%2C11WgRxUdJRL.css%2C01dU8%2BSPlFL.css%2C01otSwXAWaL.css%2C01SHjPML6tL.css%2C11e2M%2BGTQOL.css%2C01QrWuRrZ-L.css%2C31TwjE5BCgL.css%2C011Rz5p0uEL.css_.css%3FAUIClients/AmazonUI%23us.not-trident.100106-T1&majgroup=United+States&cat_supgroup=U.S.+Stamps&recsperpage=10&lot_catfk=All&subgroup=All&realized1=&realized2=&sale_no=&srtorder=315&lot_no=&sdate1=01/01/1930&sdate2=07/25/2017&symbol%5B0%5D=++++++++&lotclass=All&syear=&pfoper=gt&pseoper=gt&pfgrade=&psegrade=&gandor=or&keyword=&catselect=eq&pscolumn=default&pssortby=&sortord=DESC&photo=&fastsale=on&sea_name=&calledfrom=lot_grd&sea_emailflag=on&btnSubmitNext=Next

People with scissors don't tend to cut stamps out with 90 angles on each corner. And if they do, they are careful to make equal margins.

The cancellation seems pretty strong, and I can see it soaking pretty deep into the paper.

Stamp is a used 304. The few imperforate used stamps were mailed by dealers or collectors. It is unlikely that any were trimmed so poorly.

I never expected this to be genuine, have no intentions of wasting the time or money to attempt getting it expertised and posted this as a lark.

It's listed in my collection with other fakes and forgeries, where it belongs.

Huh? That's completely inconsistent with your original post, where you ask if you should get a cert, and provide data for evaluation.

It's going to be hard to take any of your future posts seriously. This forum abhors games ...

Wow. Looking at this stamp, would you seriously consider it for a cert, cjpalermo?

I thought it was interesting I could find no evidence of perfs and that the cancellation didn't abruptly end at the edge from trimming.

I thought it would be interesting to see what others thought. That's what I meant when I said I considered it a lark.

If that means you don't wish to take what I have posted seriously, so be it.

It's never going to get a cert.

Stampman2002


Stampman2002

Stampman2002, As a relative beginner, I always enjoy learning from these threads, even when they're a "lark"...However, I can see how this could vex cjpalermo...