PF Vs PSE Grading Experience

Those diagonal lines look like the usual hairlines to me, and they're usually light and can often look as though they're missing/unprinted, especially on later impressions.

Yow. Where's my stamp tongs? Turn it over and hold it up to a light.

I'm not seeing anything drawn in, but I am not an expert on this series/type.

I will scan and post a copy of the back when I get home from work tonight. I did not notice any flaws on the back this morning when I put it on the scanner.

I like the stamp especially with cancels black/red etc. around eye and with guidelines.
If sound I would think it's definitely a "90". It's nice.

rogdcam: I don't see extra lines in the forehead. There's a good image of the design at

http://www.theswedishtiger.com/69-scotts.html

There are several short perfs that should reduce the grade it gets, but maybe that doesn't matter.

I've only sent one stamp to the PF. It looked to me like it had a filled thin, but it came back with a clean cert so I'm glad I did.

So do you still think its a filled thin that the PF missed, or do you think that they got it right?

Too many people at the PF would look at it for all of them to miss a filled thin. At least three and possibly more.

Here is the reverse of the 12c Washington.
I find no flaws or thins.

It appears the (slightly) nibbled perf at top is repaired (or thinned). That discoloration is likely some filler material to hide (i.e. stabilize/improve) a thinned/nibbled perf. Have you dipped it? Something like that would be obvious in fluid.

Unexpectedly (LOL), that defect doesn't appear at all in the ebay listing images (no nibbled perf, no obvious fill/repair shown on the image of the back, etc.) Funny how that happens!

Original listing that I'm going from:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/311981575994

Anyway, I'd now say there's a near 100% chance there's a problem with that perf that will get called on a cert. My advice would be to not certify it (it will cost you another $30, it will come back mentioning the fault, and it will receive a low grade if graded). IMO, it's a pretty stamp and probably worth the $28, even with the known problem...you might still consider keeping it.

It could be a perf foldover. What is more disconcerting to me is the possibility of a sealed tear leading from that perf to the southwest when viewed on the reverse.

OP, could you do a 1200dpi closeup of just the area around that short/folded perf, both obverse and reverse?

Ok. I dipped it in watermark fluid and rescanned it at 1200 dpi. I replaced the rear image above and this is a closeup of that corner. It appears that is was a folded perf as the fluid straightened it up.

If it dipped OK, submit it to PSE for a graded cert. The cert definitely pays for itself many times over if it's sound, as it's likely to get a 90, maybe even a 95. SMQ (90) = $325. SMQ (95) = $750.

Maybe you found the needle in that haystack (!) but I still suspect something will come back on that perf. It doesn't look right to me, and looked thinned on your front scan (broken fibers/scuffed surface).

At a minimum, you'll get a data point on how well you use fluid...If they find paper/perf faults that you didn't see, you still have some learning to do :-)

Question for those familiar with this series: Those margins look pretty darned large to me. Is it possible it gets a J? If that's the case, then it doesn't matter if it's 75, 80, 85, 90, or 95. The J alone is worth getting the graded cert IMO.

Regardless, my lay opinion is that I think it's worth a flyer on a graded cert.

They're large, but IMO not large enough to get a "J". Siegel has some graded J's in the power search for anyone who wants to compare. IMO, centering here fits well in the 90/95 range.