R43B Pair Misidentified

Wow, this is a pretty beginner-level mistake to make from a longtime ebay dealer.

This is not how a part perforate pair is valued in Scott. To quote from the introduction in the Scott Specialized catalog:




So, this pair catalogs at $13.50, not $60.

Jim

http://www.ebay.com/itm/drbobstamps...AOSwsMpZkwfJ

Hi Jim

I just wonder how many new stamp collectors read the front pages of the Scott Catalog, the entire front part. A ton of information there, just waiting. Makes a good foundation for new stamp collectors.

Stampmaster

Maybe it wasn't a mistake.

I dunno, I doubt a big dealer would attempt fraud for just a 16 dollar additional profit.

I'd assume a simple mistake, but you never know, I guess.

Jim

Hi




I'm pretty successful in the IT world, for just one simple reason.

I'm the only guy that ever reads the directions.



Jim

Hi Jim

I myself have read and reread the first part of the Scott catalog, maybe 20 or more times.

You are not the only one who reads the directions. But darn those drip timers, really hard to figure out, even with directions.

OK, I'm stupid, what does "IT" world mean?

Stampmaster

I've seen numerous pairs like this, some even offered at major auctions. It all depends on how large the margins are (amongst other factors) as to whether it's plausible.

Note that the PF has recently started adding the following words when a pair in this configuration is deemed genuine in their opinion:

IT IS GENUINE, BUT THIS PAIR IS NOT IN THE PROPER CONFIGURATION FOR THE ACCEPTED SCOTT LISTED "PAIR"

IT means Information Technology, which today means the weird guy that has a tiny office under the stairs and fixes all the computers and servers and fax machines and cell phones and anything else with a power cord in a mid-size manufacturing business.

It used to mean nerd, geek, etc. I guess. Back in the 60s you were of course in the A(udio) V(isual) club.

Ahh, memories...

Jim

I didn't know someone could change the rules, so to speak, whenever they wanted. Hmmm...

Jim

They did not "change the rules". Part perf pairs ALWAYS had to be imperf between and at the ends. It is just being added to the certs now. Changing the precise wording is nothing new, old certs used to completely ignore condition. All they ever said was genuine or not.

So, which is it? There seems to be a contradiction here. It's either one or the other, or someone has changed the parameters.

Jim

I agree with Jim. There's a contradiction in play here. If you search through PF certs, there are a number of stamps in this configuration that they deemed genuine. The older certs simply said "Genuine". Recently they started adding the wording I quoted above.

That runs contrary to Bart's comments above.

Recent example (#525847):

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

IT IS GENUINE, BUT THIS PAIR IS NOT IN THE PROPER CONFIGURATION FOR THE ACCEPTED SCOTT LISTED "PAIR"

Another (#428529):

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

It Is Genuine, But NOT A PROPERLY CONFIGURED "PAIR", THE PERFORATIONS AT LEFT PARTIALLY BLUNTED FROM SCISSORS SEPARATION.

Another (#404591):

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

It Is Genuine, The Right Stamp With A Tiny Pinhole At Top Right


Older example (#391973):

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

IT IS GENUINE


Even older (#115761):

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

IT IS GENUINE

At my work place, I am.

Sadly.

Despite my best intentions to the contrary.

Etc.

Jim

And this is exactly why people that receive authentacation certificates get so up upset, from time to time.

Either decide on a standard, or don't.

Jim

As I wrote above, older certs often ignored things. What the cert says is that the stamps are genuine part perfs but they are not a "part perf pair". Certainly an improvement over simply saying "genuine".

Then that is what the certificate should say, right?

Jim