Ok, here's my comments on various and sundry lots.
A few disclaimers:
1. My assessments are based upon the images. I have not examined any of the items in hand.
2. These are only my personal opinions. I could easily be wrong (I'm wrong several times a day...)
3. I'm not going to comment on 20th century material or deep back of book, as I have virtually no experience in those areas.
If you want to view the lots while reading my comments, here is a link to the auction:
https://stampauctionnetwork.com//B/B96.cfmIf anyone has any questions about any other specific lots or the results, by all means post and we can get a discussion going.
7. Too much. Hope the buyer gets a PF cert. Those familiar with silk papers question the existance of R1d. I have an example that I believe is legitimate, but until I get it certed, all bets are off. Neither Eric nor Richard have ever had one.
11. Actually not a bad price for someone who wants to dive into printed cancels, as there's a nice variety here.
19. Too much IMO, given the faults.
21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29. Not surprising given the cancels concerned. Within the realm of expectations.
40. Premium price. Personally, from an aesthetic perspective, I would prefer either the cancel OR the DT as each one should be the focal point of the stamp.
42. If legit, and that's the question, a superb example. Better get a PF cert.
42. Too much IMO for a kiss impression.
45. I was the underbidder on this and in retrospect I should have bid higher. I already have an example, but this is the only example of the two Marysville stencil cancels that I've ever seen on a denomination other than 3 cents.
48. Very nice example on an aesthetically superb document. Not surprised this went above Scott.
50. Premium price. CDV bisects are the most common revenue bisect type and don't usually command the same prices as those on documents.
56. Much higher than I expected. Again, the cancel actually detracts from the DT being the focal point, IMO.
59. Don't like. Get a PF cert.
67. Very strong cancel strike and well centered on the stamp, but stupid price. This is a $500 item max IMO.
77. I was the underbidder on this. It's actually not a T13, it's the plate position directly above the T13, exhibiting DT elements only at the bottom of the stamp.
78. Bogus, IMO. Color isn't right for an early printing. To date, there have been no convincing examples of R15a or R15b found, which is why I recommended that Scott add the language now found in the footnote underneath R15: "The existence of Nos. R15a and R15b has been questioned by specialists. The editors would like to see authenticated evidence of the existence of these varieties. A horizontal pair, imperforate horizontally, has been expertized but that certificetion is very old, and the itam requires a reconsideration and a modern authentication if found to be genuine. This item probably is a perforation error."
80. Do not like. Get a PF cert. Cancel date is a year early and the paper color is spotty.
81. Do not like at all. Wrong cancel type and ink color for the era, plus if you zoom in on the auction image you can see a pale area underneath the bisect, tilted at an angle, which appears to exhibit perforations, where a stamp was but was then removed. I spoke with Richard about this item during the auction and his assessment: "It's bullsh*t." Succinctly put.
85. It's a nice item, but expensive. I wonder if it was the doubling of the printed cancel that pushed it up.
86. Seems high to me for a "pair" in the incorrect orientation and the fact that it could be a top margin misperf, but Richard said he actually liked this item. The color is right and the centering is fantastic for a part perf.
95. Too much for a margin imprint capture. This is a $75-100 item IMO.
100. Too expensive IMO. The cancel is great, but these occasionally can be found with this cancel. The underlying stamp is crap for this kind of money.
108. Actually a decent price for this. I contemplated bidding on it.
111. A comparative bargain given the cancel.
113. Jawdropping money. Superb full readable strike of an uber-rare cancel on a good underlying stamp. The underbidder is a known collector, so it appears to be a legit realization.
114. Expected. These always sell well.
116-118. Unsurprising, given the cancels.
123. Too expensive IMO.
124. Better get a PF cert. I don't like the edges.
126. I hate this stamp. The ink color and paper color are indicative of an early printing not a late printing.
128. A bargain. I should have bid.
133. Bogus. It's a misperf EFO, especially with an 1868 cancel. Crazy money regardless. I found one similar many years ago, and I've heard some longtime revenue collectors posit that an R30b could exist as other similar examples have been seen. But until someone gets one certed or a vertical multiple is found, it's unlikely, and regardless, this stamp wouldn't be one with that date.
My example:
https://revenue-collector.com/zoomify/2913.jpg183-186. Get PF certs. These show up created from imperfs, adding perforations at the sides.
187. The power of the stock cert. This cancel, of which this is a subpar example, is normally a $100-150 item. Very scarce stock cert.
188-190. See 183-186.
193-194. Ditto.
200-201. Better get PF certs...
205. I hate the jaggedness of the vertical edges on this. Likely created from a part perf.
209. Normally, I would say this isn't a silk because of the 1869 date... except I have an example that based on paper color and threads, looks fully legit to me... and it too has a very late 1869 date. I should send mine into the PF.
225. A comparative bargain, given the aesthetics.
227. Another bargain.
235. Stupid money.
237. I had planned to bid on this, but I was only into it for about $275.
128. Very strong money.
243. I had planned to bid on this... but not anywhere near what it brought.
246. More than I was willing to spend, but not surprising.
270. Cheap. Should have gone higher.
291. Actually a decent price given the aesthetics of the cancel.
292. Also a relative bargain.
314. Even being in at the bottom, a relatively cheap way to get a multiple.
318. I wish I could have seen this in hand. Notice the difference in impression at the top of the stamp vs. the bottom. It almost looks like there's some doubling going on at the top.
345. Way too high IMO. I think lot 347 is as nice or nicer at a fraction of the price.
351. I was sorely tempted to bid on this. Declined opinion or not, it has the exact same cancel and date as certed R100e. EVen if determined an EFO rather than the actual thing, it's interesting.
353. Absolute bargain. I should have bid.
356. I was the underbidder. In retrospect, I should have pushed higher.
367. Some dealer got a bargain; will make money.
368. I've talked about this one before. It boggles the mind how much they paid.
372. There must be some great stuff in it.
383. I was the underbidder and I *REALLY* wanted the lot. It opened at $400. I had to back out though, because as much as there are some great items in it, there are also some outright fakes in it, and ideally I prefer on-document illegal usages over just the stamps, as it is much more difficult to fake entire documents and the connections to the cancels.
397. Decent price. I would have expected it to go higher.
401. Not surprising. I was a player up to about the $300 level.
413. Too much. It's an ugly example.
426. As Bart pointed out to me, likely reperfed at right. These almost always have space on all 4 sides, and I've not been able to find any other example with perfs as far into the design as this one.
447. It would be interesting to see research on this one... color changeling? Actual wrong ink?
464-465. Amazing results. I've talked about this variety here on the board before (link below). Based on all the images I have ever seen of any of them, I don't believe there are any double or triple imprints. They are all quadruple imprints. None have been certified recently by the PF. I may just send in my example along with my documentation, and see if I can get the Scott Catalogue entries changed once I have a cert.
My previous discussion:
https://goscf.com/t/47394520. Not surprising. This is the third-scarcest Scott-listed sewing machine perf, behind only R120 and R5. Even with the cut cancels and staining (and possible repair at top center?), it has larger margins and more perfs than most examples. Tough stamp.
533. AFAIK, the "intermediate paper" on RBs is not worth a premium over the true violet paper, so I don't know why this went so high.
553. Wow.
744. This opened at $1650 and I considered bidding... to quote Ron Burgundy "Boy... that escalated quickly." When you think about it though, after BP it works out to roughly $6 per stamp... and there's some decent material in the half of the lot that is shown.
So how did I do? In short: ok but not great.
Having a relatively strict budget, multiple lots of interest, and not being able to afford tham all is problematic: determining which lots to push on. If I blow through my budget early it leaves nothing for later lots (and one late lot was one of the ones I really wanted). If I hold back and don't bid, bypassing lots I could have won, and then don't get the late lots I held back for, well... phooey.
I went into the auction with three lots that I REALLY wanted, and about 15 others that I planned to bid on. I mentioned above the one lot I didn't get that I really wanted (383).
By about 3/4 of the way through session 1, having been either the underbidder or blown out completely, I could see the handwriting on the wall. So I decided on a compromise and decided to make some impromptu bids if I thought things were bargains and I liked them.
I decided that for these lots, since I didn't necessarily trust the house in question, I would watch the bidding and if no bids came in, right before the lot closed I would make one bid and one bid only. If I was outbid, I immediately passed. The house can't bid you up if you don't bid more than once.
While I was, in fact, outbid on the vast majority of lots, there were two that I was able to get at openers.
All in all, I won 4 lots, including 2 of the 3 I originally wanted:
53. I have been in love with this item since I originally saw it while browsing SAN and saw it in the archives of the 2008 Siegel auction of the Tolman collection. I didn't think I would ever see it on the market. The document is visually superb and has a wonderful matching printed cancel. It's a very unusual document.
414. This was an impulse purchase. Yes, it's centered to bottom, but it has great aesthetics. Of the multiple plate positions showing the foreign entry of the 70c, this is one of the most bold. And the contrasting red handstamp cancel doesn't hurt.
742. This was the last of the three lots I really wanted. Just a gorgeous illegal usage!
752. The other impulse buy. It was about to close without bids, so I gave it a shot and won it. The large format CDVs with larger denominations and/or multiiple stamps affixed are relatively uncommon.
So not the best auction results I had hoped for, but overall I'm content... and it left some money left over so I'm going to go to a stamp show next weekend that had I spent all my funds I wouldn't have been able to attend. So that's a win.
Posted 03/02/2019 4:12 pm
