Help With Scott C2..reverse One.

Hi guys..Was looking at my Scott C2 mint never hinged stamp with "reverse one" in the margin.

Here is my concern..
1 - Scott C2 single (with no "reverse one") = $90.00 + 100% for mint never hinged.
2 - Scott C2 block = $500.00 + 100% for mint never hinged.
3 - Scott C2 single with "reverse one" in margin..???????

Help is appreciated

Robert

This is the way that plate number 1 was regularly issued as reversed.

Sadly the top perfs would diminish value considerably. Normally the extra selvedge piece would be a bonus of maybe 10% IMO.

Happy New Year to all!
Wert, I don't usually get involved in discussions about valuations but deep down I am getting an uncomfortable feeling that many of the SCF Forum are setting themselves up for serious disappointment by over valuing their stamps (using catalogue values)
In this case, I agree with 3Dadeo that the top perfs reduce this stamp from "VF" to "F". This also means that the NH premium is reduced from 100% to 50% (see page 10 of the Unitrade catalogue). By applying the Unitrade valuations, you have a stamp with a cat. value of $30 + 50% NH premium for a total value of $45. The reversed "1" in the selvage may draw a slight premium.
With many dealers selling material at 50 to 60% of catalogue, that stamp may be valued at about $25.
Apologies for deflating your valuation but I think it is about time we all got over the idea of grading everything VF-NH and applying full catalogue values. It just doesn't work that way anymore.
GJP

Ya Garfield, I dont ever ask about value, but I was really trying to put my stamp as a SINGLE with reversed "one"



But as Jogil said this was the regular print in reverse...??

Then what is Unitrade talking about with reference to a reverse "one"...???

Robert

Unitrade is just saying the 1 is reversed. The imprint has a reversed 1 on all copies of the imprint showing the 1 for the stamp C2 left margin. Note there is no special number or sub letter indicating it is a variety. They apparently wanted to let people know this was normal.

watermark..Gotcha.

Robert

Personally I consider the stamp less than fine - to me the top perforations make it damaged. I would rather have a slightly less centred example with intact perforations.