Scott 23. 7r1l. This Is Horror And Makes Me Want To Quit Collecting. Please Prove Me Wrong.

I have grown a fondness of plating and enjoy the fun of Scott 5-9 and Scott 18-24.

Up for sale in Clipper collection is a great stamp, super rare, and was of much interest to me until today.
It is a Scott 23, perforated 7R1L, graded and certified by PSE 2009 as an XF90. It is a stamp that is super rare and of great significance due to its plate position. Please see second image. The stamp sold for 2000$ in the Rarities of the World sale in year 2009, and now comes up again for auction mixed in with the Clipper Collection.

Now lets look at the first image below. It sold in Michael Bennett Auction Sale 287 April 1-2, 2005. It was sold with following description "small corner crease ending in a tiny tear". It realized 475$ in the sale.



Bennett Sale




upcoming Siegel sale


Can someone explain this "debacle", or is there bad stuff at play here?

Do we know if the corner crease and tear have been eliminated by the removal of the piece at LL and the adjacent long perf? If so I don't have a problem with it. The extraneous bit that has been removed was of no philatelic significance, and IMO does not merit the label of "philatelic butchery" that I have used elsewhere here. Whoever bought the stamp in 2005 improved its overall condition and grading by removing an inconsequential element. The fact that such a maneuver is not contemporaneous with the actual use of the stamp might bother some, but in this case I would be OK with it.

If the corner crease and tear are still present but not called in the 2009 PSE cert, well that's another matter...

Dudley, I find it hard to believe Bennett would sell this as a faulted stamp if fault was only in the extraneous piece. I wouldn't touch this stamp with a 10 foot pole

Dudley, it is quite possible your theory about this stamp is correct. rgstamp, did it have a cert back in the 2005 Bennett sale? Auction lot describers have been known to make mistakes; sometimes they are even overzealous in calling borderline perceived faults to help avoid returns. That being said, I would pass on this one unless the ambiguity is clarified by the auction house. rgstamp, I suggest you call Siegel and report this to them. I have in the past reported two such situations to two different auction houses; once a firm removed the lot from their sale and once another firm convinced me there was no logical way the old description could have been correct (and reminded me that I also had the right to an extension for certification). This stamp would qualify for such an extension since the present cert is old enough.

I agree with rg that it is highly unlikely a fault in the superfluous fragment of 17R would have been mentioned. If I was interested in the stamp I would not hesitate to call Siegel first thing on Tuesday to clear it up. I have called about stamps and they have gotten the stamp right out while on the phone with me to answer questions. Robert A. Siegel Auction Galleries is a class act. Would I be surprised if PSE missed something? Hell no! I avoid PSE certed items unless it is something I really want or can return without too much hassle.

I agree that there is also that chance that the original Bennett description was wrong or overly cautious/conservative...

A similar centered stamp with better impression compared to this one sold for $4,000 in 1987, and resold in 1998 for $4500.
It's such a rare stamp that I can't imagine Bennett would misidentify a fault that could cost the owner thousands of dollars and their company a nice commission. I just google searched and the Bennett link came up. The internet definitely is a great resource. I'm glad I did the search before jumping in on this one.

In reality, there are probably fewer perforated Scott 23 position 7R1L than there are Scott 5, 7R1E available to collectors. Every few months a Scott 5 is for sale. Once every 6-10 years this position of scott 23 is auctioned.

Regardless, I will stay away from it.

If one goes to the Siegel site and enlarges the image, there might be a small problem in the top left corner running down from the first perf hole at the top. However it might just be a natural mark in the paper as well.

Can you inquire of the Siegel folks what happened to the tear that was describe in the earlier sale? The original sale description does not specify the corner with the crease and tear. I'd agree with revcollector the first place to look is top left.

It would tough for me to wait out the next 6-8 years until another turns up at auction ( in who knows what condition) without seeing a scan of the back of this one. But then, you're way younger that I am.

Since you clearly want a #23 7R1L, I still think you should call Siegel for clarification. Auction lot describers do not typically have the resources available to them that expertizing agencies do, such as enhanced fault-revealing technology, access to stamp-specific experts, a reference collection, no tight deadline for deciding, etc. In fact, auction lot describers use pretty much the same tools we collectors would have - watermark fluid, tongs, magnifiers, etc. - plus their own experience and the description from the seller. Therefore, without seeing the stamp I would trust the later certification opinion more than I would trust the earlier lot description.

It may be the nicest one in existence but that is not the point. I don't want to speak for rgstamp, but I would be reluctant to bid when I, and only I, have knowledge that a stamp may actually be defective. Say you buy that stamp for $4000 and hold onto it for 10 years and the next buyer wants a PF cert and the stamp doesn't get a clean cert because of a "small corner crease ending in a tear". Your $4000 stamp just lost a significant amount of value! It could happen. Consider this excerpt from a PSE communication found in another recent thread regarding a potential intentional alteration of a stamp:

Basically meaningless, since "tiny fault" is totally in the eyes of the beholder.

Speak with Andrew Titley. I am certain it will be cleared up easily.

This stamp also has a PF certificate I found in their database. Take a look.

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...mitNext=Next

It states that the stamp has a corner crease at top left ending in a small tear.

If you cannot open the PF link the dert number is 425639.

That was my stamp at one point. I bought it in the 90's with the fault as described by Bennett and the dealer who sold it to me. Harvey sold it for me described as such, as you saw. What I don't remember, unfortunately, is which corner had the flaw. I'm sure I examined it when I purchased it, but I don't think I looked at it again (for the flaw at least), so I've forgotten.

If the flaw wasn't at BL, I am clueless as to why they'd remove the portion of 17R1L that they did. Too bad that was done in any event.

Defect or not, I always liked this stamp. Its a nice item. Our (stamp collector) pursuit of perfection, sometimes causes a stamp like this to not be included in our collections. That's a shame. I was happy to have this -- but of course, I wouldn't have paid a fault-free price.