Need Opinions From The Experts On 2 Columbians

I recently acquired these two and need your expert opinions on their condition. I am no expert on regumming but know enough to question it when there is gum on some of the papers fibers. Most of the edge on #242 appears good but I have noticed a coupl elocations that are suspicious. The perfs on both seem a bit rounded but look legit to me.

I have compared the overall appearance of the gum on both with others of the same issue and see no difference in color or texture of the gum.

First thee #242:



The following are two close-ups of two different locations on the edges of the stamp. One appears to have glue attached to the fibers. The other, is how most of the rest of the edges appear -
free of glue.





Next is the scan on #243. I have noted no signs of possible regumming. Again, the perfs seem OK though a bit rounded.



Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I forgot to add that both are previously lightly hinged. My first though was why regum a stamp and rehinge it but I suppose it's possible.

Because a novice would assume that a hinged stamp is OG.

I keep focusing on the $3.00 stamp because it looks like it was centered and cut out from a larger piece (proof). All four sides look cut, rather than torn/separated from a perforated sheet.

I was told many years ago that hinging a regummed stamp is a trick that German regummers use with their "refurbished" stamps...to make them more plausible.

Keep the feedback coming! Thanks bookbndrbob for your input.
I did run both stamps thru Retroreveal and neither showed any sign of latent cancellation. I did a Srail type test and had no apparent problems. The perfs themselves seem normal cut but I've always watched for rounded perfs as a possible sigh of hiding a reperf job.

Gum on the little hairy bits is a sure sign of regumming. When a stamp is separated the paper is torn at the perforations. This little bits of paper at the ends where the paper was torn will never have gum on them. Those close-ups you showed are so close, I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at, but that sure looks like gum on the fibers.

It's not just the Germans. Hinging regummed stamps is an old trick, a dealer told me that one the first time about 45 years ago. I also do not like the $3 at all, the perfs look bad and the stamp itself looks funny. That might be the scan, of course.

I actually don't like the bottem perfs on the $2. Perf holes look funny to me.

Yup. The 243 left and bottom margins are b-o-g-u-s. The 242 is very much regummed.

The $2 looks reperfed, and based on your close-up images, is either RG (my guess) or disturbed gum. The $3 looks reperfed on multiple sides, and either regummed (again, my guess) or disturbed gum. Any chance the $3 is rebacked or otherwise significantly altered? (Did you dip it? I'd like to see a picture of this stamp in fluid.) It doesn't look like an altered proof, but the perfs on multiple sides don't look right. This is a strong candidate for having significant alterations/repairs/etc. IMO.

BTW, neither stamp passes the "Srail test." If these are scans (not photographs,) then I'll modify my earlier opinion to say they're both "definitely" reperfed on at least one edge.

Both stamps were scanned separately but using the same settings.

Then both stamps are definitely reperforated on at least one side. If you bought them as sound, I would return both. Based on your images, they likely have additional problems beyond the reperforated side(s). For instance, there's an extremely high probability that neither is OG LH either. They'll be disturbed OG (best case, IMO) or RG (more likely).

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SCOTT-242-...222852017180

https://www.ebay.com/itm/SCOTT-243-...222852020844

Caper123,
In looking at the listings, I see no marketing fluff being used. He acknowledges he knows little about stamps (but this is often used as a dodge). He does not appear to have a history of selling bogus stamps, perhaps you will be able to return them?
Don

Thanks for the links, Don. From the seller's images of the backs, both appear crudely regummed to me. The $2 appears to be regummed over a major thin or repair, which shows pretty clearly in the seller's photo.

Thanks all. I have been in contact with the seller who appears happy to make the refund, with an apology. Srailkb, there does not appear to be any thins, the regumming was quite professional in appearance aside from some telltale gum droplets on paper fibers in the perfs. the 243 was also likely regummed but a better job of disguising it through the re-perfing. Both appear to have been hinged enough to disturb the gum in the one place at some point.

It's regrettable as I have been wanting to fill some openings in my collection for some time and these seemed very nicely centered. The seller did provide some somewhat clearer photos to me before the sale ended so I knew both were MH before the bidding.

I would be shocked if there wasn't a thin or other major fault under the fake gum here...