I Went 3 Out Of 4 At The Philatelic Foundation This Time Around...

And actually the failure was exactly as expected. Let's start with that one.

See this thread:

https://goscf.com/t/28598

It discusses a purported R53a that I felt would inevitably get a declined opinion as there's no way to know what it originally began life as. Since I was already sending in several items anyway, I figured why not? If nothing else, I wanted to see how consistent the PF's decisions are (see below).




So all that said, with the declined opinion confirmed, I'd like someone to explain how the (supposed) R80a from PF cert #496153 obtained a positive opinion? It suffers from the exact same issues as this item. The color shade of R80a is not relegated solely to imperforates; there are early perforated examples with this same shade.

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp



PF cert or not, I would never touch it. It should have received a declined opinion.


Now on to the successful results...

First we have a provisional IR overprint on Scott #273. It's not R157, but rather a smaller font. There are now 2 examples certified by the PF, so I think it's time for it to be listed in Scott.







Next, a very scarce revenue bisect, RB4d, vertical half of the 4-cent 1st issue Proprietary stamp, on complete wrapper for a trial size of 'Fish's Saratoga Asperient' prepared by George H. Fish & Sons, Saratoga Springs, New York. The regular size would have been taxed at 4 cents, hence the 2-cent tax on the trial size.

This is the second example to be expertized by the PF, the first one belonging to Michael Rosenberg, Bart's brother, found 40+ years ago.








Lastly, one that I was hopeful for, but with part perfs one never knows...

In the 2018 Scott U.S. Specialized Catalogue, #R60b (50-cent Original Process part perforate) took a leap from $650 to $4,000, an almost unprecedented increase.

Well, there have been 3 recent auction results of very high grade examples, all with PF certs:

1. Dec. 16, 2014. Lot 298 in the Curtis Collection auction held by Siegel. Also a gorgeous stamp, brought $7,080 including BP.

2. Oct. 5, 2016. Lot 1261 in the Grant Inman Collection auction held by Siegel. Gorgeous stamp, brought $7,965 including BP.

3. Nov. 11, 2016. Lot 1340 in Siegel auction #1140. PF graded XF90 brought $7,080 including BP.

All of these results were when the catalogue value was $650.

All 3 examples are very well centered, so is this a condition rarity or an actual rarity? (The term "condition rarity" in numismatics refers to the case where the piece in and of itself is not scarce or rare, but in high grade it becomes rare).

Would examples with centering not as nice still have value?

That's when I started researching known examples... and was shocked at just how few examples there are of R60b.

I came up with only 9 examples of R60b including the 3 examples above:

1964. Siegel sale 277, lot 365. No cert. Hammer: $16.
1983. Siegel sale 624, lot 229. No cert. Hammer: $55.
2010. Rumsey sale 40, lot 2193. 2008 PF Cert. Hammer: $700.
2014. Siegel sale 1089 (Curtis Collection), lot 298. 1996 PF Cert #525843. Hammer: $6,000.
2016. Siegel sale 1137 (Grant Inman Collection), lot 1261. 1997 PF Cert #311540. Hammer: $6,750.
2016. Siegel sale 1140, lot 1340. 2016 PF Cert #536551 (XF90). Hammer: $6,000.
PF Cert #469239
PF Cert #243377
PF Cert #243376

That's far fewer than the R15e population I came up with when researching that stamp.

I asked both Eric and Richard how many they have handled... neither one has ever had an example of R60b.

So with that information in hand, I decided to send in my example, more typical of left-to-right centering normally found on part perforations, so not quite as nice as the 3 examples above. I picked it up back in 2012 from a small dealer at INDYPEX; I felt it had a good shot at being legit... and so it is.

So this is now the 10th reported example of R60. It may not be worth the $7-8K the most recent 3 brought, but it's certainly worth a bit.

The $1.90 has a good cert because there are others known used from the same company; all have similar margins.

If they all have similar margins, then how does anyone know they are legit imperfs? One poor decision far back in history shouldn't then validate current ones; i.e., they should not validate one another if the underlying foundation for the original decision is flawed.

Amateur question: does "part perf" (b) mean 2 opposite sides imperf?

Hi Fred,

Yes, partially perforated means that one direction (either vertically or horizontally) is perforated, while the opposing side is not perforated.

Jim

I have a similar R60b that I won on ebay recently. I do plan on sending it in for a cert soon. What do you think? I was leery of the 67 year date, but it is the same as yours.

Thanks Jim

It's hard to tell on mine whether the last digit was intended to be a 7 or a 3, with that smeared secondary stroke. It looks almost as if someone started with a 7 and then tried to make a 3 out of it.

I would send yours in.

In regards to your 53a Dan, I am a little confused as to why if the sheet is perforated or even part perforated, the person applying it to the document would take the effort to trim it to make it an imperf. Also, would said person have also taken extreme care to make sure no traces of the perfs would show? I would think that an on document copy would be a no brainer.

UNLESS........hmmm, the original perforated stamp was removed and replaced by a trimmed copy. But then someone would have to go to great pains to make sure the cancel appeared genuine.

There were some incredibly fastidious/OCD/bored clerks, that for whatever reason would cut stamps to the design before affixing them. I have an entire sequence of checks from the 1880s where the R152 were cut to the design before being placed on the documents, each and every one of them. Who knows what the motivation was.

As far as the R53 on my document being lifted and replaced, I would say no for several reasons:

1. You can only see it under a loupe, but the cancel does tie the stamp to the document, but only barely. Trying to manufacture that sort of tying would be virtually impossible, unless someone had replaced an untied stamp with this one and then manufactured the tying, but...

2. If you were going to manufacture an example, why wouldn't you use an example of R53 with more convincing margins? To do it with this stamp makes no sense at all.

The complete lack of margins actually argues against it being manufactured, in my opinion.

"If they all have similar margins, then how does anyone know they are legit imperfs? One poor decision far back in history shouldn't then validate current ones; i.e., they should not validate one another if the underlying foundation for the original decision is flawed".

Except that it is NOT flawed. The paper, shade, date, and impression are correct for an imperf. Perforated $1.90 stamps differ from imperfs in all of these areas. There is no reason to think it is not a genuine imperf.

Except that the color of imperf $1.90 is NOT unique to imperfs. Early perfed examples have that same pale lilac shade.

Personally, I have serious doubts about the existence of R53a. The finest example I have ever seen STILL might be a trimmed stamp, and that stamp probably has the widest vertical margins on both sides known. I have never even seen an example with any part of the design of the next stamp showing on both vertical sides; horizontal pairs are unknown. Plus nearly every example I have seen has suspiciously cut vertical margins as well.

Very few, and the paper and impression are NOT the same.

In addition, I suggest for those who have not done so, spend some time examining perforated multiples of the 40 cent, $1.30, $1.50, $1.60, and $1.90 first issues. You will discover that the positions are fairly close together, which helps make both trimmed and not trimmed margins easier to identify, especially if one spends several decades examining them under a 15x or better glass.

rev hound I would send your item in even with the late? date. it may come back ng, but it does appear to be a top margin single and the bottom margin should be examined closely. a western use cannot be ruled out.