Scott #18 - Beware Of This One...

Here is a listing from your second favorite cartel member, Noble Spirit.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NobleSpiri...AOSwuNFbdiCo

To be Scott #18 this pair has to be plate 11 or 12 and full plumes on bottom and full top.
This pair has neither the plate dot or full plumes nor complete top orns.
This pair appears to be type V (top) and Va (bottom) from plate 5.
They look nothing like a type I, #18.
They are really milking this one.

Noble makes mistakes but they are not 'cartel'.

More like a Wal-Mart that sometimes identifies store brand water as Fiji water.

Agree. I was thinking the same thing. I don't necessarily see shill bidding, or one item being "sold" to a different entity, that then immediately puts it up for sale again. I've bought one or two items from Noble, and you just have to be wary of their claims.

What I see is downright fraud. There is no way an experienced dealer would call these two stamps a #18. One way to test them is to point out the error and see if they pull the sale. If they do not, then they are thieves.

Here is what I just sent them:
"These two stamps are NOT #18. They are both #24 and worth about 5% of stated value. Top stamp is type V and bottom is type Va which makes it a pair from plate 5. To be a #18, it must come from plate 11 or 12 and neither has the plate mark that all plate 11 and 12 stamps have. If you are honest, you will pull the ad."

Lets see if they are honest or thieves. My guess is that they will ban me from bidding on their items like the last guy did (Georgia Law).


Edit: I removed "Cartel" from the topic."

Also agree, but not a Cartel member. Buyer beware.

Noble Spirit...today's Oxymoron.

They are really not overly knowledgeable; calling it fraud is overstating the case to me.

Right, but the real test is when they are told and do nothing about it. It seems like something has changed there fairly recently. They never used to be so bad, at least not that I can remember.

If, the original poster is correct, and the listing is not adjusted, then I'd suggest "fraud" is completely relevant.

Fraud.
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Noble Spirit : "26 in-house experts at your service"

I have found that this seller sometimes responds to errors pointed out, sometimes not.

Experts?... at what, flummery?

It does seem like 'spin' is becoming more common in our hobby, whether it is marketing puffery from some sellers or political-speak from some of the organizations.

I've been a bit slow to get to this thread, but I've been meaning to correct a mistake in it, which I'll do now. It doesn't change anything about the listing issue - just a statement of what the stamps actually are.

This is a vertical pair of #24, Ty V. Both stamps are Ty V. No doubt.

The top stamp is relief D, while the bottom stamp is relief E.

The E relief does not have any side-scratches, and the Ty V version of it sometimes has more complete right side ornaments towards the bottom. That can easily fool people into thinking its a Ty Va. Ornaments L M and N tend to be short, on it however. These are the top half ornaments on the right side.

The real telling point here, however, is kind of straightforward. The top stamp, which is relief D, does exhibit the Ty V side scratches. They are in fact present on this stamp on both the lower left (faint) and lower right sides. The vertical scratch at the extreme lower right is definitely there and absolutely tags this pair as being both Ty V, since there is no D-E vertical combination that can be V-Va.

I should also mention that this overall color and paper appearance is not indicative of Plate 5. For it to be Va, it has to be plate 5. Its not, so on multiple levels, these are Ty V's.

Once again, this doesn't change the issue(s) with the listing, just getting the specification of what they really are crisped up.

I saw the complete orn at lower right and my first thought was Va and therefore plate 5. I did not know that there was any exceptions. But there should be no way to confuse them with a type I.

I definitely agree.