An Unlisted Second Issue Proprietary Stamp Variety

Scott lists Rb11d, a vertical pair, imperf. between.

This is a vertical pair, imperf. horizontally.

I don't know if the entry should be changed, or left alone and this one added.

Also, just for show and tell, here is a pair of Rb13d.

Jim

Hi Jim, would it be possible to see reverse scans?

Stampmaster

Mr. Drummond: What are the chances the perforations at top and bottom have been trimmed away? Have you seen a strip of three imperforate horizontally? I have seen attempts to make new varieties like this on other imperforate between stamps.

Wtcrowe (sorry I don't know your real name),

The three cent horiz. pair is from lot number 3018 in the Morton Dean Joyce Collection, Daniel Kelleher sale number 589, in June, 1991. It was "listed but unpriced in Scott."

This sale also included two copies of Rb11d: one mint in a block of four, the other a used pair. Lots 3002 and 3003.

Lot 3002 included this:




To answer your questions:

I doubt that the perforations were trimmed, and I have not seen a larger multiple than vertical pairs.

Jim

Ref: pages 358 and 359 in the above described catalog.

Hi Jim, in the Morton Dean Joyce Collection, and Daniel Kelleher sale number 589 does not automatically make both real!

If might help if we could see a scan of the reverse!

But in any case, I think you own 2 real nice examples!

Just saying.

Stampmaster

I strongly beg to differ.

Joyce was the premier revenue stamp collector, and Kelleher (at least back then) was the premier auction house.

If anyone disagrees, please let me hear it.

Jim

I disagree.

Any particular example to share?

Or just disagreeing on general principles?

Either is fine, in any case.

Jim

I don't not disagree with respect to disagreement... assuming that's agreeable.

Very

Ah!

Seems as though the cast of Monty Python has entered this chat room!

Welcome!

Jim

Youse guys! Thought I was reading Prof Irwin Corry for a moment.

Joyce was the premier collector in large part because dealers knew he would spend on quality items so everything funneled to him. He clearly enjoyed it and had a certain level of knowledge, but he had a philatelic secretary named George Turner who was the really knowledgeable one. And Kelleher at the time was just one of several important auction houses. The fact that the item was in Joyce's collection does not prove it genuine or untrimmed. Auction houses write descriptions like that to help sell the item, not because they knew something no one else did. Those margins are too small on both sides to be able to prove anything.

Presuming for the moment that there are, in fact, no vertical pairs, imperforate between in existence, but there are currently four known vertical pairs, APPARENTLY imperf. horizontally, you would prefer that the existing Scott listing remains unchanged?

If so, that's somewhat... baffling.

Jim

What I do know is that the margins on both ends are too small to prove anything either way. Four pairs is not such a large number that I would simply guess that they were really imperf between cut close. These would have been used on proprietary articles, the design of the package might have made it impractical to cut them off the packages any other way. Too much unknown here to make a judgement.

There are match & medicine stamps that almost always have the perfs cut off of one side because of the way they were used on the packages, so there is reason to at least suspect that it might have happened here.