314A ? ~ What Say You...

As an FYI...

Langs... 314A... $50K w/PFC

https://www.ebay.com/itm/314A-1908-...AOSwzgBY2xAw

And even that one has an issue with the upper left. Looks like two very small standard perforations.

I assume the Schermack has a cert...interesting.

Conclusion: as a scientist I recognize logical solutions: The coil had to be produced on one of the test machines by Travers & friends with a 4 cent Grant imperforated stamp. There is no other intelligent conclusion unless someone can find a # 303 large enough to put funny perfs on each side and have the stamp measure 25 mm in height and have 1.4mm margins on the side.

I think the problem is that you are dealing in a logical fallacy, akin to the following: I'm delivering furniture to your home that requires a 5'-wide opening to get inside. Both your front and back doors are 3' wide. Your conclusion is that you have a total of 6 feet of door width, which is more than adequate for a 5' wide object to pass through. But in reality you have to pick one door, and face the fact that whichever one you pick will be too narrow.

Door #1: 4-cent coils were supplied to developers of vending machines for testing under the auspices of the P.O.D. These would have been bureau-stripped coils just like Scott #318 and #322. There were no plans, ever, to dispense coils made by a vending/affixing machine company - not to mention there WERE NONE until November of 1907, thus the only thing that the machines could be designed for was to dispense government stamps.

In fact, some early government coils were cut into strips using scissors instead of a stripper ( search the images of #317's on the PF website to see some). If this was done to meet a deadline before the stripping equipment had been set up, then you could claim that this stamp was prepared from part-perforated sheets that were scissor cut into strips for experimental purposes, and perhaps get a foot through the door. Unfortunately, you have argued so vociferously against the possibility the stamp in question has government perforations that this door is slammed shut.

Door #2: It's a private coil with private perforations. Well, Schermack did have dummy test stamps produced in coil form with gauge 12 perforations in 1906 for demonstration purposes. These stamps were entirely of their own creation, having a design noting that the stamps were affixed at a rate of 150 per minute. So if Joseph Schermack indeed had a failure of recall, forgetting that he made coils out of 4-cent stamps utilizing his own gauge 12 perforation, AND the P.O. failed to record issuing the imperf sheets to him in 1907 because of Travers or whatever, you might get a foot through the door. However, these particular dummy coils were stripped rather smoothly, and subsequent Schermack Type I and II coils were seemingly hand-stripped; so your insistence that your stamp was stripped using fixed knives that imparted rough, uneven edges, eliminates the possibility that it is some kind of lost and forgotten Schermack test coil produced in early 1907, slamming this door shut as well.

It's cold and getting dark, and I've other deliveries to make. Please pick a door...

Parttime.
If those are perforations, I would't call them standard perforation for the issue though.

Agreed. They are pretty small and close to one another.

Looking for "fake" in an obviously genuine (Lang's) stamp, WITH certification is the ultimate in (sometimes well deserved) paranoia. I see MANY problems with ALL grading companies, but, come on, HOW would this be a "fake"...worry about the legion of 315's, 534B's, etc. Looking to appear an "expert" by bashing a legitimate article is hubris at it's WORST!

Bringing this back on topic, the Langs #314A illustrates a big point regarding expertization, which is experts must have a common fact base from which to draw conclusions for an expertizing process to even exist. We know that 10,000 4-cent imperforate stamps were issued. We know who ordered them, and we know what his proprietary perforations look like as well as the steps in developing them. We know the timeframe these stamps were produced and used, which companies used them, and the cancellations applied. And we have an eyewitness (Koslowski) who saw the sheets imperforate one day and then as finished coils the next. Therefore, in the event a used 4-cent imperforate having what appear to be Schermack type III perforations is in need of expertization, the body of experts knows exactly what to look for as far as attributes of the genuine article.

Ken,

Perhaps the problem with expertizing this stamp, as you have mentioned numerous times, is that there is not knowledge of fixed-blade stripper signatures that would hold consistent among experts who would examine them. What is required is an article in the philatelic press to educate everyone regarding fixed blades, including who manufactured these devices, who used them, perhaps some images or patent information, and then explain the nexus with coil development. Next, another article is required to educate on the private 12-gauge perforations, who applied them and when, what the device looks like, who involved in private coil production ordered them, etc. Third, there needs to be an article researched and written that explains what the various vending machine companies utilized as test coils in 1907, akin to the perforated dummy coils produced for Schermack's machine in 1906, when preparing their machines for the Post Office's use of real stamps in February 1908, if not currently understood.

Once all three aspects of the hypothesized production are known to the expert community, and serious students seek them out, which in turn causes new finds to be sent to the PF or APEX for an opinion, there would exist the possibility that such an issue would be recognized. You could then submit this stamp to be scrutinized against the theoretics of what such an issue should look like, as interpreted by the experts who will have read your articles. However, be prepared for all that research, even if it proves conclusively that a 4-cent imperforate sheet was issued in 1907, may actually condemn your stamp as a fake anyway. Designing a hypothesis around a desired outcome is always problematic from a scientific perspective. The stamp can ask questions, but the answers have to be independent of the patient or you get a circular logic.

Your essential argument seems to come down to "the stamp is taller then any perforated example seen" and "the vertical perfs don't look right to me". Well it is FAR more likely that the variations in quality control during the printing of 866,665 sheets issued over a seven year span at the turn of the 20th century would account for this then all the speculations about what might possibly have happened which have no proof.

There are 2nd bureau stamps that are easily large enough vertically to create margins like the OP's stamp.

The smoking gun here that has me siding with the APS and the PF is the bottom margin being far from cut straight. The stamp has, IMO, been trimmed after production.

There was a question about what I am trying to do here. Simple I am in process of preparing an article for major media outlet. This forum provided comments & questions that I wanted to ensure I could address.

Some of you may not like my reply but I will try to keep it factual.

My audience will be people like Dr. Winter who basically suggested the 2 expertizing firms screwed up. For reference Dr. Winter deals with logic & scientific evidence. I suspect many people that are HIV positive today are still alive due to Dr. Winter's research. On philatelic front if anyone knows Lewis Kaufman you might want to ask him about Dr. Winter's philatelic knowledge.

Cjpalermo writes that 10,000 quantity of 4 cent Grant imperforates is a proven fact. If he is talking about shipment to Detroit he is correct. If he is claiming that only 10,000 were ever produced that is an undocumented myth. Lawrence's article is very cleverly written to avoid making the claim that only 10,000 were produced. We now know that the BEP documents do not exist. For the record this information was available to the Philatelic Community since Oct. 1910!

There was a statement here that all scrap & waste stock (stamp over runs etc) were destroyed. The correct statement should be the scrap & waste were supposed to be destroyed. The Travers indictments covered the fact that Travers did not destroy scrap & waste stock.

Now the experts: In their claim that the stamp was generated by trimming they need to address all aspects for this opinion. Everyone on this forum claims I need concrete proof. I will turn that around & state that the experts have a responsibility to defend their position. This may be one of the few times the experts are being challenged publicly. No intelligent dealer would take them on publicly as it could prove to cause them future problems.

There is the possibility that this stamp was generated from an imperforated 4 cent Grant. Utilizing the Collector's Club of N.Y. study as a basis it supports a conclusion that the stamp was generated from an imperforated stamp.

The experts have dismissed this study and claimed it was a trimmed # 303. What the experts have not provided is an example of a # 303 that can achieve this claim.

Rough edges on my stamp...cause: sharp but stationary blades used in production. Why did the experts not consider this? They claim to be knowledgeable....there are amble examples of certified stamps that look just like mine on the top & bottom.

This forum seems to have dismissed Kent Wilson's conclusion that the stamp was not trimmed & has private perforations. Kent is an APS expert & Chief Philatelic Judge. He also covered, billw2, the problems that existed in producing the Bureau issues & why a number of those stamps are very large. By the 1897 issues the problems were corrected which reinforces the problem the experts have in finding a # 303 large enough to prove their point.

It is a proven fact that the Post Office Dept had, in 1907, 6 experimental machines for testing vending machine coils. None of these machines were accepted by the post office as Lawshe states to Congress the machines damaged the stamps.

So at this point the 1907 coil meets the Collector's Club standard, has rough edges that look similar to other coils of that era produced with sharp but stationary blades, and Congressional testimony that test stamps were damaged by the 6 different test machines. (for the record the machine companies came from a number of different locations including the German Machine from Berlin) By the way, does my coil look damaged or is it a nice pristine copy?

As we all know stamps have 4 sides. To have a stamp generated from a # 303 it has to have government perforations on the sides. From my knowledge of government perfs they are comparable...they look the same.

It seems this forum also dismisses Melvin Getlan's comments about the perfs. They are not government perfs & he does not recognize them from any vending machine samples he has seen. Someone on this forum suggested he was guessing. Melvin is the Chairman of USSS Vending & Affixing Machine Perforation Committee. I'm not sure I'd use the term, "guessing" when referring to his knowledge.

Let's look at 2 images provided: the ebay stamp that was posted by partime & got srailkb excited that it proved my stamp was a fake. The problem is the perfs on the right side. If you trimmed them to add private(perf 12) perfs you would cut into the stamp. It would be very obvious so that ebay stamp is a nice stamp but falls short in its goal of demonstrating that there are stamps available that could generate a coil like mine.

The other image to look at is the # 303 lined up with the left side of my coil. Look at the difference in the shape of the perfs. Frankly, mine are not very attractive & certainly not uniform. The other thing to look at is the top 3 perfs they do not line up directly with the # 303. From the years I have dealt in stamps I found government perfs very consistent...they line up! We now know why Dr. Winter, Kent Wilson, and Melvin Getlan have taken a position these are not government perfs! It was suggested this was only my opinion.

Let's deal with the change in Scott's Catalog. For 90 years, forgers have been faking Schermack III coils on # 303's. Scott never cautioned about this potential problem. About 5 years ago, after Lawrence studied my stamp for 3 months & Melvin's comments were shared with him, suddenly Scott's changes their catalog to warn about private perfs.

Tipzi comments that PF & APS would publicly state that the 1907 coil was trimmed & had private perfs added. I doubt it as they are having problems finding a stamp large enough to be trimmed. If they added the requirement that the stamp had to be trimmed on the sides in order to add private perfs they recognized a major problem. They don't have a stamp other than an imperforated one that could achieve this.

Whoever, convinced Scott's to modify the catalog opened the proverbial Pandora's box.

So we now have gone full circle: the experts are claiming that some forger destroyed a stamp valued today at $2,000-3,000 to produce a fake coil used 3 years before the philatelic community accepted coils as collectible stamps. Even better they are unable to show a stamp or scan of a stamp that can achieve this!

Members of this forum seem to have far more confidence in the experts than their performance in this situation warrants.

did you never make a scan and photos, maybe under magnification, of this stamp? that would be a good start, for you, and also here for the users of this forum.

We can make some determinations on the feasibility of margins of 303 stamps and the stamp in question.

We will start by making three disparate images all the exact same size. To do this, we will scale each image so that each design is exactly 354 pixels tall, this scales each image to the same size so we can then measure the margins.



Now that we have all three examples at the exact same size, we'll measure the horizontal margins. Comparing the two horizontal margins, the first stamp has a top margin of 44 pixels a bottom margin of 21, a total of 65 pixels. The stamp in question has a top margin of 18 pixels and a bottom margin of 28, a total of 46 pixels. Obviously there is plenty of room to alter a 303 top and bottom margins to fake the stamp in question.





Moving on to the vertical margins. The first stamp has 40 pixels width on right side and 0 margin on the left side, a total of 40 pixels. The stamp in question has a right margin of 11 pixels and a right side margin of 9 pixels, a total of 20. Obviously there is plenty of room to alter the side margins to fake the stamp in question.





This should put to bed any doubt that more than enough horizontal and vertical margin space can be found in some #303 stamps to fake the stamp in question.
Don

608K: Color me simple, but it seems to me that rather than trying to prove that it *IS* a 314A, you seem more focused on trying to get those who don't believe it is to prove that it is a trimmed 303.

It's analogous to trying to get someone to prove a negative.

IMO, it doesn't matter what it isn't or how it got there, but rather that it isn't what it is claimed to be.

All of these other tangents are distractions, in my opinion.

Scan.

Please. Post. A. High-res. Scan. Of. The. Stamp.

I find it very odd that with all the references to papers you are authoring you don't have a high res scan on your computer.

This dead horse appears to have done been flogged...