Imperforate Revenues First Issue: Good Scissors Or Real Deal Collection?

And it was used in NYC. And based on this, it was a very busy company, so how would such a high value stamp be laying around for so long before being used?

https://books.google.com/books?id=e...1867&f=false

I demand a formal inquiry!

If it were a San Francisco cancel, I'd be more inclined to believe its legitimacy.

Sure, so would I.

Number two is also certified by the Foundation.

Jim



Also, some more certified examples with Sept 1864 and later dates.

Jim,

I shouldn't speak for Bart, but I don't think that anyone is saying that a late 1864 cancel means it can't be genuine; just that it's a potential red flag. At least that's my take.

Number two is a fairly recent cert, so it was seen by people with a strong knowledge of first issues. The stamp with the blue CDS is also fairly old; I doubt if the current people saw it. I don't know who actually saw the old certs at the moment.

This whole thing about the 'age of certificates' reminds me of all the hassles that I get from various companies that supply our IT infrastructure at my job, along the lines of, "well you're using an old driver for that," or, "you need to upgrade to the latest version/patch level/BIOS/update in order for XXX to work correctly."

To which I always respond something along the lines of, "you know, if I buy a <expletive> hammer at Sears, it's pretty much going to still be a <expletive> hammer a hundred years from now, with all the benefits and issues that that represents. I will never have to upgrade my hammer. Ever."

I don't honestly think that, just because something (whatever that might be) is "old" (however that may be defined, from day to day), it is therefore useless, obsolete, or instantly questionable.

Perhaps this is because I am finding myself in this category, more and more each year (oddly enough).

Then again, old fish is, by and large, useless. So there you go.

Jim

Edit: to put this another way, if any current certification-issuing entity honestly feels uncomfortable with any of their "older" certificates, as to the accuracy of the identification or the faults of the stamp(s) in question, then the right thing to do would be to follow Nissan's, Ford's, GM's etc. examples, and issue recalls for these certificates, so that newer, more accurate certificates are issued in their sted. For free.

And for anyone that says, "well Jim old buddy, ya' know, technology changes all the time, and new information is always being discovered, and there's this "Internet" thingy," and so on, then I say, "then all stamp certificates should come with an expiration date, just like my cans of corn do." Like, "this opinion is useless after five years," or something like that.

End of rant... I think...

Ok Jim, I *will* stay off your lawn.

(shaking of a curled forefinger, mumbling, drooling a little, unshaven)

"You young whippersnappers!"

Jim

Certs are opinions, not cars. And the "certification-issuing entities" have NOTHING to do with this discussion. Which is simply between collectors about images shown on a PC. As it happens, some here have several decades of experience in looking at these particular items and have certain possible ideas about those items based on that experience. Which, as has been stated already, cannot be proven one way or another without a direct examination of those items. The difference in this case regarding older certs is WHO actually looked at the items in question, and how much experience did they have regarding them. And what technologies were available at the time to help. Stamps are not hammers, either. Hammers are easy, millions of totally identical ones are made every year. They do not change, and no one is taking some other tool and faking it to LOOK like a hammer because hammers are scarce and worth a lot of money. Alas, the same cannot be said about stamps.

Each hammer is unique and they are faked.

Edit: I have a bunch of old certs that were paid for when issued. I smell a class action lawsuit.

What about this one in the Harmer's International sale?https://stampauctionnetwork.com/hi/hi106.cfm#33

That would clearly be genuine even without a cert. Notice how thin the paper is, the design can be seen from the reverse. And it is correct in all the other aspects as well. There is a real shade and impression difference between imperf and perforated $25 stamps. The paper for the imperfs was rag paper, very thin and hard which took a great impression. The perforated stamps were on thicker softer wood pulp paper, which took a decent but not super sharp impression.

The problem is, that people (usually collectors, but also dealers) pay some good money for those opinions.

If the certificates themselves are deemed nearly worthless after such and such many years, then there should some accountability.




If the certificate-issuing entity is basically disowning certain certificates based on who specifically looked at the item in question, and/or the lack of whatever technology was available at the time, then they are basically issuing their own "get out of jail free" card, which holds them totally harmless from any current or future contrary opinion.

Does this honestly seem like the right way to operate a company in 2019?

If this simple concept continues to elude, then I have nothing further to say.

Jim