R7A Or Trimmed R7c ?

I have a feeling I know the answer.

The almost total lack of margins would completely disqualify this as an imperf for me. I have no problem with an imperf single, but it has to be something which could justify its existence as such. Here's an example of what I think is a nice imperf single. The margins are wide enough to justify it being a genuine imperf.







Another way to go would be with a sheet margin single, such as this one.

Danger, Will Robinson! A stamp being a sheet margin example is not in and of itself proof that it is a genuine imperf or part perf, given that the quality control was horrendous, and there are plenty of examples of claimed margin singles that are really EFOs of fully perforated stamps.

You still have to factor in other margins, cancel date, ink color, paper type, etc.

That said, the R78a shown above would pass those tests IMO. The raggedness of the edges is a side effect of having been torn against a steel rule.

The R7 is trimmed. However it is correct to say that a sheet margin proves next to nothing by itself. Many sheets were never perforated at the sheet margins to save time.
Here is one that clearly was a perforated stamp and someone trimmed the top margin: Lot 2235 https://stampauctionnetwork.com/v/v70962.cfm#109

Rev - This is the second stamp in two days from Kelleher that was pointed out as being not genuine. Really an eye opener. Wow.

Lot 2228 is also trimmed. Lot 2230 is just a badly perforated stamp that was trimmed for use. It's a nice flyspeck type of item for a few bucks, but not remotely worth what they are claiming. Lot 2241 might or might not be genuine, it has to be looked at.

Check the right bottom corner!
Remember auction houses are a business. They exist to make $$$. It is not in their best interest to look all that hard. Unless it is a case of more $$$ by more detailed description etc.
Caveat Emptor!

It's in their best interests not to become known for having a lot of land mines in every sale, so it is in their best interests long term to check every item to the best of their ability.

"The almost total lack of margins would completely disqualify this as an imperf for me. "

Isn't reasonable, however, to think for all the stamps that have nice big margins, there would be some that do not? It was my understanding that these stamps were printed pretty close together, and someone cutting these apart in 1863 probably couldn't have cared less about cutting them neatly and with nice even margins.

True, that's why margins are only one factor. Shade, impression, paper, and date of use (if available) are all important factors as well.

True, however a stamp needs to be able to stand on its own merits. If it doesn't have sufficient margins (and other positive indicators) to likely preclude (note that I don't say "absolutely") that it hasn't been trimmed, you cannot consider it to be a valid imperforate stamp. It could very well be one, but it can't stend up under its own weight.

The same thing applies to 1st issue silk paper multiples. You will encounter muultiples where not all stamps have blue silk threads. As long as the multiple is intact, all stamps in the multiple are treated as silk papers (I don't care about some of the ridiculous historic pronouncements on some certs claiming that a multiple contains some silk papers and some non-silk papers; that's B.S.). However, the moment that multiple is broken up, any individual stamps that no longer can stand up to scrutiny, i.e., do not have prerequisite silk threads, are no longer considered silk papers.

I know this is a hot-button topic with some people and that opinions definitely vary. I find the notion that you would have an intact multiple containing multiple paper types to be utterly bogus.

Back to the original topic: As an example of an "imperf" that is completely plausible but in my opinion noncertable, see the document below.

R53a is incredibly scarce, and given there have never been any horizontal pairs reported, and none of the veritcal pairs are convincing, there are many who argue that R53a does not really exist and that all examples are either misperfs or created from part perfs.

On the document below, the stamp used is VERY tightly trimmed, yet otherwise has all of the correct attributes (color, date, impression) for an R53a. It is barely tied to the document via manuscript cancel (evident under close examination) and the document and stamp show no evidence of the stamp having been lifted or otherwise tampered with.

So is it an R53a?

In my opinion it very well could be, but there isn't sufficient evidence to come to that conclusion. There is no way to know whether it started life as an R53a, R53b, or R53c. If I were to send this into the PF for a cert, I would expect "decline opinion".

It just can't stand on its own merits, so you have to consider it as not being legitimate.

I purchased it as a reference piece and it makes for good conversation.

Out of curiosity, have you ever submitted this document for certification? Perhaps with PF's equipment, they might be able to determine whether it is legitimate.

Just a thought.

Nah, because I haven't felt like wasting ~$50 just to find out I was correct to begin with.

That said, I have 2 other documents I plan to send in to the PF, so I might piggyback this, although if I had to wager, I'd bet it gets a decline or negative opinion...

I understand the cringe worthiness of the price, but what if this should be the discovery piece which finally puts this out there as legitimately existing?

If you've got some others you are sending, I'd definitely send this one with them. You just might get a present!

Won't happen. Can't happen. The only thing that can do that is the discovery of a multiple that includes a horizontal pair. It hasn't happened in 150 years. Not saying it can't happen, but it's extremely unlikely.

No single will ever prove the legitimacy of R53a, given the production methods and quality control of the era.

No, even if this usage on document somehow got a positive opinion, there are plenty of people that would doubt it, due to the nature of R53a.

One of the problems with a document like this is that taxpayers often trimmed stamps close for reasons of space on the document. So it might easily have been trimmed for that purpose, with no fraudulent purpose at all. But it still might not be considered an imperf for that reason.