Scott 158 Plate Proof?

So what do we have here? Plate proof? Scott 158h?

TIA for your comments.

Burnside

Trimmed perforated stamp.

Looks like a pane divider at left, so it probably had a natural straight edge at left originally.

Following revcollector and txstamp, the margin arrow is the key; Banknote jumbos typically come from the edge copies of panes. Straight edge copies were always disliked as they are now and until fairly recently, jumbos were less interesting to collectors of the time vs. perfectly centered stamps. So quite a few straight edge jumbo Banknotes had their perfs trimmed off to appear to be imperf singles.

At the top upper left: are those dents or does a perf gauge show that there are still traces of perfs there?

Revcollector, you have sharp eyes!

Those do look like traces of perfs, not dents, at top. I laid another 158 over the top and the perfs match the dents.

Under higher magnification there were 2 more dents visible and I missed 'em all.

Burnside

Yes, they are perf trace, the left as much of the arrow as possible, which meant sacrificing on the rouse of an "imperf" error stamp. It's on soft porous paper, and without the additional recut at bottom right, so just a big fat 184 with margin arrow, and perfs trimmed off.

Note on Edit: Yeah, I buggered the Scott #, don't know what I was thinking... I'm going to claim Anchor Bias.

I think people see perf traces when they think they should see them, not that this is anything other than a trimmed regular issue stamp. I do agree that it is a soft paper stamp, so a big fat #184.

I do not see any perf traces even though it is trimmed.

thought I'd throw this old post out to add to the imperforate banknote topic. No big deal just adding to the topic

https://goscf.com/t/27325&SearchTer...e,bank,notes

rogdcam (and others)
Here's an image with arrows showing these perf traces. Magnified it shows a couple of others below it.
It's good to learn to recognize this minor detail. Sometimes they aren't visible as easily as these are. Put the stamp in fluid just deep enough that there is standing fluid in the dip tray, but not covering the face of the stamp. A light at just slightly off overhead angle will then show these tiny indentations as almost "highly magnified". The light is particularly useful in seeing the indentations then.

It always helps to find perf dimples, but for this stamp they really were not needed. One look at the paper from the reverse image should have been enough for almost anyone to tell.

revcolletor, that's true, BUT for collectors or newbies in philately that are inexperienced with Proofs, this allows the ID without the knowledge of proofs. (And even with that knowledge, if they are not strong in paper types, one might still confuse a 183P6 on stamp paper for an "imperf", and in reality, the no need for paper or perf remnants, the guide arrow alone demonstrates, it's a stamp and not a proof... BUT all that requires knowledge of proofs. The perfs (for this example), not required.

Classic, You state:



How does this statement square with Siegel Sale 816 (the Finkelburg sale) for example? Specifically lots 1731 (showing 150P3), 1735 (showing 153P3), and 1736 (154P3) which all illustrate plate proof multiples with arrows.

The residual holes are the true confirming feature of sheet origin. Are they not?

John Becker,
I yield.

If those dents in the paper are perf hole remnants, where are they further over to the right where the remaining margin is actually larger?

Confirmation bias.