Help Plating A One Cent Blue

I purchased a nice looking #7 at a show this weekend. Someone wrote in pencil on the PSE certificate "70L2". Can someone confirm this? It probably can't be anything else.

That is not "nice". That is gorgeous !!!


Peter

70L2 is correct.

The left side ornaments are short, and the vertical scratches in the right margin, and the small 'dot' at about 3 o'clock in the right margin are all very good matches.

There was no centerline on Plate 2.

No doubt part of Lot 1131 in Siegel Sale 1090. Nice stamp indeed. Fairly uncommon cancel too, pity to not at least preserve the entire cancel. Probably because it used to be part of a strip of three...

Thanks for the help in plating, but I couldn't find a match in auction records.

Really nice stamp. Thanks for sharing.

I can imagine seeing 69L2 from the same pane having a very tight right margin. I'd send it to PSE for "grading" assuming it comes back with a high grade toss the high grade in the description and sell for $10,000.

It's a beautiful piece.

I think it would grade 95J assuming there are no hidden faults. Either way, $10,000 would be an impossible number by several thousand.

The current SMQ is $1300 for 95J, $2000 for 98 and $3500 for 100.

Obviously the sarcasm alert didn't work. I for one am adamantly against grading imperfs since they can be manufactured and the $10K was obviously an ebay dreamer price. If it were in my possession it wouldn't ever be sold until my demise....

As I said, I bought this stamp at a show. It had a 2010 PSE cert graded 95J, and the dealer wanted $1300 for it. I really was struck by the beauty of the stamp, but I knew that there are an awful lot of "manufactured" 95J, 98J and 100J examples in existence, and I think the SMQ values for #7s are higher than the true market. After a little negotiating we settled on a price of $1150, and I went away from the table quite happy.

When I got back home, I did some more research on the stamp. I couldn't find an auction record for the stamp, which surprised me a little, but it didn't really raise any suspicion. Then I went through the PF database. There are 1103 certificates on Used #7s in their database, so it took a little time. To my chagrin, I found one issued in 2009 (see below). The crease that is described was clearly visible even to me, a non-expert, when I dipped the stamp, and I kicked myself for accepting the PSE certificate on face value at the show. I still don't understand why they didn't mention it on their 2010 cert.

The dealer has agreed to let me return the stamp, and I'll chalk the whole experience up to what someone else said, ""experienta docet". I'm not buying at a show again without dipping.

I'm happy that you caught that in time, and that the dealer is ok with a return.

In the upcoming weeks/months, I may post an experience with an expertising organization with regard to a cover. Its a parallel issue to your stamp certificate studies, with a different set of problems.

That is why I included the caveat, "provided there are no hidden faults", when I estimated the grade. I thought it was odd that Siegel would have included that stamp in a group lot if it was sound.

something smells bad here. Just the dates alone... buy the stamp, submit to PSE, comes back sound suddenly. Something does not seem right here. We can keep giving the certificate companies a pass but this is not right. Something is amiss

This problem is similar to the companies that were grading bonds in 2008: your customers want good ratings. If you are the one that gives bad ratings, people will take their business elsewhere.

PSE makes it money grading stamps. How many people will use them if every stamp comes back with a tiny thin, short perf, faded color, poor impression, etc.? If you look hard enough you can probably find some damage on these tiny 100 year old pieces of paper that have been handled hundreds of times.

It's a thin line between being too fusy and too generous. The Scott #7 above is a beautiful stamp. It deserves to go in a nice collection. Not surprised that someone was so wowed by the face they neglected to dip it.

Grading is supposed to be a totally subjective process. But we all know that it will never be one.

I also suspect that if you are a dealer giving a for-profit grading organization many thousands of dollars a year in revenue you might get different results than say a collector who submits a couple of few times? Is that too cynical?