Scott 20 With Tight Margins

I think this may be a Scott #20. The east/west margins/perforations seem really tight compared to other 1851 1-cents stamps I have. Does it look re-perf'ed. on the left? Right? Measures about 20mm East/West compared to about 21 to 21-1/2 for a couple of #22's. If its a easy one to plate (looks like a top row) and anyone wants to plate it, it won't hurt my feelings, if you'd rather not, that fine too. I'm not too much in the early classics, even though I've several, I'm more into the Washington-Franklins, but this one has been bugging me for a while.
.


,

Very nice

Its late for me, and my eyes are tired, but my first reaction is that :

the top line,
the top of the top ornaments,
much of the right side ornaments,
the bottom line

are all painted in.

Type V, Scott #24 paint job to look like a Ty II.

I will look again tomorrow when I can see better.

I agree, and reperforated on the right and left to get rid of the large margins that would have given it away immediately.

A person might be able to find out what is going on by looking at this item I sold on ebay.

https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/283653546808

Yes, I concur--a faked #24. Look at the middle stamp on the cover in sinclair's link.

Good to know. At least I don't have much of anything invested in it. Came in a small stock book from a flea market a few years back. I knew it didn't look kosher, but not really the why.

Yes, this is 10L10. Interesting on Winston's sold cover, it is not a strip of 3, but rather a pair and a single, with 10L in the middle as dudley correctly stated.

Jack Molesworth got it wrong on the back of the cover

The fake stamp in this thread I think, is a slightly above average job, which might fool some general collectors out there.

I wonder if some subtle indelible ink marking on the back of this stamp would be appropriate here, as a preventive measure?

In typical show lighting it would probably fool a lot of collectors. Unfortunately finding stamps similar to this is not all that uncommon. I have seen several, as have others here I am sure.

I know the buyer of my cover fairly well. I think he knew what he was getting.

Winston, I don't see any issue with your description.

It was just Molesworth's scribble on the back of the cover that said it was a strip of 3. Amusing only, not a big deal.

I appreciate the Molesworth observation. I remember some of his back and forth disagreements with individuals and certification agencies. I was not informed enough at the time to judge anything. Always wondered was he the wiz or the goat or somewhere in between. I remember one detractor commenting "what's a mole worth?

Well, I didn't know Jack Molesworth but I for one could have done without his voluminous notes on the backs of his covers. I own a lot of covers that he handled. Notes are especially annoying when they are not even correct.

Getting back to the OP's stamp - I think the left side perfs are probably genuine. It may be impossible to find a Plate 10 stamp from the 10L or 1R coulumn with genuine perforations along the interpane margin. While it was common practice earlier in the 1857-61 era, by the time Plate 10 was made, the interpane margins were left imperforate. This fact happens to be a plating aid with the 3c stamp.