Scott 68 With A Repair?

Hi

Looking at this stamp I noticed what appears to be a repair on the lower portion of the reverse. Am I mistaken? Overall the stamp is in less than desirable condition and it doesn't seem like an example that would justify repair.

gettingold

Yes, perfs added at left (from back), they're pretty obvious.

Despite being a non-stellar example, missing perfs makes it present even worse, so some people will add perfs. It's not a spectacular repair, it could be someone wanting their collection to present better when it was in the album (and a casual glance won't bring attention to the tear in the top). It may have been someone experimenting with repair too, so when they came across a more difficult repair, they would have experience.
It looks like the upper right (from back, left from front) at top corner also has one or two added perfs.

Oh, also, nothing wrong with repairing a damaged stamp to prevent the damage from getting worse. Damaged stamps are still stamps, and while may have diminished value, are still part of ones collection, particularly if the collector doesn't have the bank account to get all perfect stamps.

Also, this isn't a 68.
It's a grilled stamp, so is at least an F grill (96), which adds to the value, and explains why someone might try to get it to present better as well. Used 96 is $250. As opposed to a 68 which is $60 used.

ClassicPhilatelist

I saw this and thought it might be a grill. Under the USB it doesn't resemble a grill. I thought perhaps it was matrixing.

Unless it's a grill fake, which I can't tell from this scan. But looks to me like, most likely, an F-Grill. Take a flashlight, hold it about 6" away and about 2" up fro the right side of the stamp, at an angle around 45 degrees. Allow the light to cast a "shadow" over the back of the stamp, and I imagine that grill will pop right out at you.

Soak it in water and see what's left. There is a small chance these are just paper adherence that could result in a sound, more attractive stamp. Any repair that results in loss of eye appeal is rather nonsensical, no?

And yes, per CP, it's grilled.

It is likely that removing the extra paper will reveal a large thin that was filled. I agree that it appears grilled.

Thank you all. I took your advice and soaked the stamp. Here is the result:






There is clearly a grill. I ran the image thru retroreveal in an attempt to highlight the detail. The flashlight test did work. Counting the rows on this particular stamp became a guessing game as some rows just seem to have disappeared. I believe the basic outline of the grill can be seen. Thank you all again for your help. I had this one misidentified.

It soaked much better than I expected. The perfs are added, but they haven't used a water soluble glue, like I was expecting, so they remain. The extra paper and the hinge are gone, and that makes the back much cleaner.

The general rule of thumb for grills is, if you can't identify it specifically then, it has to be the lowest valued grill stamp. I think if you used the side lighting, and got a good photo of that, then put it in Photoshop and increase the magnification digitally, you may be able to determine this one.

Also, surprisingly adding increased magnification to grills from directly overhead (like a USB view) can often times reduce the visibility. (This is mostly a lighting issue though). If you can side light it, and put it under magnification, then you may be able to see it better.

One "last ditch effort" that Sinclare2010 doesn't like me recommending is to use an advanced technique called the "Graphite test". I think this stamp may be a strong candidate for such a test, as 1) it's not an incredibly high value stamp, 2) it's been repaired and has many other faults already 3) doesn't have a strong grill impression and 4) could be a good learning point for you. So you can decide to do it, or not do it, but do use some caution.

The test is performed by first rubbing a graphite pencil (soft lead) on a piece of paper, until you create a small amount of graphite dust. You can then rub your finger (typically little finger, for lighter pressure, and smaller surface) into the dust, then very lightly rub your finger over the grill area, so highlight the points of the grill. This can then be viewed under magnification and easier to count the tips. Doing this lightly allows you to be able to gently erase it after, so there is no long term graphite residual (or very minimal, and generally especially on used stamps, pencil markings are frequently found, and not considered major alterations... though I'll declare a preemptive protest from Sinclare2010 to save him the time disagreeing with this approach). It's your call, and your stamp, and this approach is not without controversy, but the alternative is to have an unidentified grill.

Do you have the details of the various grill types to identify these, or do you need some help with that too?

I despise repaired or altered stamps. I'm diligent about the certifications on high-values to keep the album weeds out, but I fear that I've missed some alterations on lower-value stamps. Everyone assumes that only high-value stamps will be altered, but I would expect that scores of low-value stamps are also altered - likely as practice for the stamp doctors.

Some repairs are essential in order to preserve stamps and postal history that are genuinely scarce or rare. And there is nothing wrong with selling a repaired stamp as long as the repair is noted and it is priced accordingly. Alterations are a completely different matter, they are always fraudulent.

I decided to risk the graphite technique and got unexpected results. Prior to applying the graphite I believed the grill extended further to the right. After the graphite was applied I couldn't find what I'd assumed was there. For Grill ID I printed out the Bill Weiss & Don Denman Grill ID chart off StampSmarter. The Grill appears to be a partial Grill. Default Grill is the most common.

You are right, it is a partial grill, but we can now clearly see that the width of the grill is 11. It's definitive, an F-Grill, which was my expectation.
You've gone a little heavier on the graphite than you needed to, but it's not a total mess on a stamp with issues already. I would call this a good practice stamp. Next time focus on using as little as possible to just highlight the grill points.

That is actually quite good for never having done it before.

Thank you. In my opinion Grill ID is one of the more difficult aspects of this hobby. This technique is helpful. I will reserve it for stamps which already have significant issues.