Is This A Genuine Mint #12?

U.S. Scott #12 unused catalogs $30,000 with gum. $11,000 no gum.

proof...
https://goscf.com/t/54530

Are you asking if it's a proof? Doesn't appear to have the image quality of a "Proof", does it??

What I was thinking of is if the OP's stamp was a faulty trial proof
redrawn too make it look(Clumsy forgery) like a Sc:12 ?

@stampcrow Actually some people agreed with you that the printing does not look like a proof. The printing quality looks more like a stamp. So I don't know what it is.

@perf12 trial proof? isn't that scarce and expensive?

I have been assuming that the background of the vignette area on the OP scan is a scanner-anomaly, with the blotches. It looks a lot like the mess that my lousy scanner makes of otherwise nice stamps all the time.

Possibly I'm mistaken in that assumption.

Regardless, whatever this started out its life as, might require an in-person exam to be sure of.

edit: in this post I'm only discussing the background of the vignette area -- *not* the top and bottom projections which are obviously fake.

I don't understand.The OP's e bay listing look like good pics,
not top though.Here he posts a poor quality pic.
What is this mess in the frame extensions?

Some nice stamps and pics..
http://www.usphila.com/us/stamp/pri...t-12-page-12

Those top and bottom projections are very clearly drawn in as I mentioned earlier. They aren't even symmetrical .. a mess. That's not a scanner anomaly, that's a problem with the item.

This is a common way to fake a Ty I #12 from a Ty II plate 2 item which has a similar design, but without the top and bottom projections.

Now what about the large margins?

The large margins at top and bottom are a fair question.

On a 42P3, there is enough room to cut a stamp big at top and bottom, and still have room to draw projections in.

So the question that you are asking, is after the projections are drawn in, is there still room for a bit of sheet margin at top and bottom?

Maybe - it would help if the 42P3 were a bottom row copy, so one only had to worry about the top. I suspect that would probably suffice for this.

I am using 42P3 as an example of source material here, but when one has an item altered to the degree that this stamp has been, there really isn't any substitute for examining it in person. We don't know what else has been done to this.

I should add that another trick is simply to add margins.

People who can add paper to a proof to simulate stamp paper, are quite capable of adding margins to a stamp. That is another alteration that has been done many times.

So the OP got ripped off....

One last point I'll make - and this goes to my repeated statements that something 'this' altered has to be expertised in person to get the full story --- but --

hy-brasil's comment that this might be a perforated used stamp is also a possibility. I can't tell what is a possibly bad scan vs a possible postmark remnant, but that possibility exists in the colorless oval as he pointed out. Margins can then be added to make this a nice imperforate stamp.

A lot of work went into making this monstrosity.

It was said earlier in this thread that it would reflect well on the seller if he/she took the stamp back. Some of the worst sellers on ebay are always happy to take the stamp back. What they hope is that you don't know the difference and that you keep the stamp. My idea of a good seller is one that can do business with a novice without ripping them off six ways from Sunday. Sadly, that is a quality that is not that easy to find.

True enough, so to review.

A bad seller will not admit they made a mistake and try to park a misidentified item on a novice hobbyist. But some bad sellers may accept the return; typically if they think they can easily park the crap on someone else and/or if they think that they can continue to play the buyer for an even bigger swindle.

A good seller would review the transaction and if they discovered they had made an identification mistake correct it to the satisfaction of the buyer.
Don