USA Trans-Mississippi Scott 292 Cattle In The Storm VF Lh Og

Thank you Stallzer!

Note: Sceptics should read "United States Postage Stamps of the 19th Century and the Influence of Paranormal Forces Upon Production" by Sir Duncan Hines.

banknoteguy - You are right in starting out by aligning your grid on the perfs. I started out by aligning the grid with the vertical sides of the engraving just to get a feel of how well the perfs lined up with the engraving. When I could see that the left and right sides were already parallel aligning it in that manner, I left the grid as is. That's why I judged the top row perfs to be uneven. I did also try aligning on the top perfs as you have, but then I noticed the flair out of the left side perfs near the bottom, as cfrphoto mentioned. I wasn't sure how to explain it.

I've been told that non-parallel perfs don't always mean the stamp has been reperforated - the sheet can move slightly during the perforation process especially near the edge of the sheet.

I don't mean to be critical of your stamp, Paul. I'd just like to learn as much as I can about reperfing, because it is such a big problem, and even the expertisers often disagree. I also agree with you on point you made about the value of some classic stamps. It's been my impression that popular stamps, in particular, that appear nicer than the average for the grade ("high for the grade"), not uncommonly sell at auction for over SMQ.

This discussion got my curiosity piqued. This stamp was purchased from Kelleher in Auction 721. Lot 2706. Description says 'barest trace of hinge', for whatever that is worth coming from the seller. This search also sent me in places that I haven't been in years, and I loved my journey. Since there is a 1993 PF Cert with the stamp, I thought MAYBE it had been sold either slightly before that date (and the new owner wanted assurance) or slightly after that date (and the previous owner wanted to sell it with an assurance). So, I went to Seigel's Past Sales - as you all probably know, most stamp photos in Siegel's database are after this era (Except for Rarity Sales), so it allowed me to look through PDF's of entire sales between 1992 and 1994. This stamp wasn't sold (more accurately, wasn't photographed) by Siegel's between 1992 and 1994. I suppose I could have looked through ALL their PDF'ed sales, but I will leave that to someone else here. I also looked through their PowerSearch of all 292* with '1993' in the description. No luck there, either. Maybe with some more work, someone could better flesh out the history of this particular example.

I've been collecting for about 50 years. I've worked for a number of well known auction houses in my 'youth' as a philatelic auction lot describer. Over the last couple of decades, I have limited my stamp activities to collecting - I've got a good job outside the field that pays me enough to remain active in philately as a collector. Having said all that, I don't see anything about this stamp that absolutely says it is a reperf. I haven't seen its back, and I haven't looked at the perfs with a glass. Although the perfs aren't completely 'typical' for the issue, they are certainly within the range of possible. As far as I know, the only people that have seen this stamp in person are the Topic Starter, The PF, PSE, the staff at Kelleher, and Gary Posner. Granted, Kelleher and Posner had a vested interest in the 'cleanliness' of the stamp, but the others did not. I would accept the sum total of opinions from the PF in 1993, PSE in 2017, and the Topic Starter (plus throw in Posner and Kelleher) over a bunch of guys looking at 600 DPI scans of the front only. If any of you have seen this stamp in person, please let us all know your opinion.

Nice stamp! It deserves a prominent spot in your collection.

Paul,

Despite the various opinions voiced by the naysayers, I think you got an amazing stamp at a great price. You can be proud to include it as part of your collection. While all the world is stuck in the throes of a worldwide pandemic and many an old man (or woman) finds themselves stuck indoors for their own safety, it's easy to let boredom get the better of them and just be grumpy. Although I've been collecting for more than 45 years, I won't express any opinion on your stamp other than to say that it's a beautiful thing and move along. Thank you for sharing it with us. Just my 2¢.

Scott

Grumpy!?!?!?!

It has been long enough that I can no longer recall exactly, but I have seen either a 1c or 2c mint Columbian that was either regummed or reperfed. I don't know if the jerk thought it was worth his time or if they were just practicing.

As revcollector says, hardly affecting only certain stamps from this very limited issue. I've seen misplaced holes internal to blocks on issues that don't come imperf, so it can't be a fake perf job.

"It has been long enough that I can no longer recall exactly, but I have seen either a 1c or 2c mint Columbian that was either regummed or reperfed."

I have seen several of both, but if you take a few USED examples that would grade in the 60-80 range then you can be reasonably sure that they have not been reperfed.

agree

Me too

Thanks so much everyone for their input and feedback on my stamp. I appreciate the perspectives and I thank everyone. I was very happy to receive some very nice comments from some members and it makes me happy to have joined such a group of knowledgeable philatelists. Thanks !

wow that grades as just an 80? I think this stamp is above that.

Stamp is close at left, and off on two sides. 80 is about right.