Admiral 5c Imperforate Used

Hi guys, somebody thing could happens that this is true?


Any comment is wellcome

my guess: perforations clipped off, it would help to see the rear against a black background

Believe chasa s correct.
Top arrow seems to point towards a slight perforation.
Also the whitish colour of the bottom to me means old stamp, new scissor cut...Just an opinion.
Robert

Thanks, it is put on sell by somebody from Holland. The tariff for that period make sens that the stamp is find in Europe. My biggest doubt was if it is possible to be an single used, If I look at the imperf orate for this denomination was only 200 stamps in pairs not singles.

So my doubt about the authenticity was right.

Correct silviosi

Robert

Thanks

The entire left side of that photo seems to show perfs against a background - likely affixed to paper still. I would be avoiding this.

Is there a mm size for Canadian stamps that you can say it's a genuine imperforate? (talking about: Victoria, Edward, George)

I know from US stamps that there are rules (with exceptions) for coils (vertical, horizontal), so I wonder if there is a size in Canadian stamps where you can really be sure.

(of course all this without seeing any perforation remnants...)

Agreed.
Illustrating the point that poor images supplied by members, can obfuscate real study, resulting in poor, even incorrect opinions.

Clear accurate images should be encouraged at all times, not a lazy point and shoot with a cell phone.

Thanks, it is put on sell by somebody from Holland.




I agree if you do your self the scans. I put what I get. If I have in my hands the stamp, was no need to ask opinion. I have enough tools and experience to analyse a stamp or a batch alone.

In the future I suggest you not to grab conclusions base on your instinctive personality. We are here to try to help others not to discourage them.

You made the conclusion, not I.
I suggest you re-read my post.

The advice was there to help, the corollory is, that if the image had been offered correctly, then you would not have had to come here for advice.
The mutilated stamp would have been self evident.

It remains, a lazy point and shoot with a cell phone.

wright,

I come here to post only some discoveries which I do not find any mentions in any articles or studies done about( I do not look to much in poor and incomplete Unitrade). I come also when I am not sure absolute about somethings, which means 4,6 or more eye can see better. Also to see the new discoveries, almost for the varieties and also if I can help with my limited knowledge somebody.

Always I look to upgrade my collections or adjust.

Silviosi,
it is rare on this forum, for members to personalise criticism.
we are here to help and learn, all of us.
The danger in these types of images, some newer collectors could be tempted into bidding on what is perceived a scarcity.

If a described item appears to be scarcity, we should all expect the item to be described and shown as best as possible.
Cell phone images can pass muster, but need to be on a black background where optimal, to process stamp teeth clarity, and face on, not on an angle.
This should be an expected minimum.
Cheers.

I hate to be a killjoy here, but it should be pointed out, for the sake of accuracy, that this stamp is not an Admiral, as mentioned in the title of this thread.
Who we have here is King Edward VII. A stamp referred to as an Admiral is of course a stamp picturing King Eddie's son, King George V, in his admiral uniform, hence the name of stamp.
A minor point I know, and doesn't really relate to the perforations of the stamp, but don't want anyone to be mislead.

Issued in 1903, this stamp is a Scott/Unitrade #91, or 91a if it is truly imperf.

Jamessw, it was very admirable of you to point out that detail.

Mike

Thank you Mike. So I have your stamp of approval?