R102A For A Bargain Price, Maybe?

If this is a true imperforate stamp, then the selling price seems fairly low.

But if it's a trimmed perforated stamp, maybe not.

I believe that the perforated stamp comes with a lighter shade of red than the imperforated example?

Anyone want to gamble on it?

Jim

https://www.ebay.com/itm/R102c-200-...92:rk:9:pf:0

Maybe our resident experts can weigh in on this. Looking at the R102c's and R101a's on the PF website, the colors are all over the map.

Is that a large thin on the back? If it is, might be a little dear at $500 even if it is genuine with teeny margins and not a trimmed R102c.

I vote for a cut down perferated stamp, the 1965 dated cancel is a bit lat for imperfs.

Not to argue with you, but this one is similarly dated 1865.

Jim

https://www.ericjackson.com/rDetail...8549&this=it

I'd also point out that the seller on ebay is selling it as a R102c instead of the imperf R102a. Might just be a mistake, or y'know, the seller might be canny.

One look at the paper would be all that is needed. It does not appear thick enough from the scans; the $200 imperf paper is almost like parchment. But it still requires a personal view to be sure one way or the other. Since shades on a PC are all but meaningless they are of no help here.

without an eyeball hands on look my vote is trimmed perforated copy.
eric's example has more margins. the size of these issues often led to their being cut down to fit available space on the document.

That guideline doesn't apply to R102a. R102 wasn't delivered until July 1864, so 1864 is the earliest date one can encounter. If you look through SAN, Siegel, and the PF, you'll find that 1865 dated cancels are quite common on genuine R102a.

In this case it's all about the paper. As Bart mentions, The imperfs are on a much thinner paper.

I saw this particular listing yesterday. Overall the margins are smaller than I would ideally like, it appears to have a severe thin, and without being able to check the paper attributes, it's a no-go.