I looked at it long and hard, and came down on the side of a proof. The upper right ornament doesn't look like it should on a #40 (to my eyes), and the mark at the very lower left (such as is found on all positions of the reprint plate) also looks wrong to me. But it's close, and I could well be mistaken.
No one in his right mind would perforate a Scott #5 or #24 proof. All are expensive. Only 40P3 or 40P4 from the new plate are less expensive than the stamp. The perforations are correctly placed and spaced and likely to be genuine. It is evident that a number of buyers agree, based on the current price. Use of the term "mint no gum" [sic] suggests that the seller has no clue. Reprints of the 1857-60 issue were perf 12, issued without gum. While there is no substitute for examining a stamp with a 15x loupe before buying, the seller failed to include a condition description. The buyer can return the stamp as Significantly Not As Described (SNAD) if condition issues other than the toning are found.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited. Privacy Policy / Terms of UseAdvertise Here
Posted 12/30/2019 10:23 am
