Question About R30B Stamp

I bought some collection of stamps and I see one stamp that was mark as R30b. Can you put your opinion if it looks like R30b? I can attach more images if need it.

It's a trimmed perforated stamp. There is no listing for an R30b, and the cancel date would be late for one in any case.

Dont look now but R30b has been added to the Scott 2021 specalized catalogue.Guess someone found a good looking copy.

When I see a pair that I can prove has genuine perfs then I will believe it. Until then I am VERY skeptical of the sudden appearance of a new perf variety of first issues after 175 years of never seeing one.

Agreed (from a hobbyist's perspective).
I am also skeptical of how a small handful of people appear to have influence to get things listed under the radar coupled with the lack of a published catalog inclusion criteria. Did the publishers examine the stamp(s) in question themselves or did they rely upon a certification(s)? Was a single stamp used to verify the inclusion of this new variety, a multiple? multiple singles? Who did the certification(s)? What were the cancels on these stamps?
Don

If the litmus test is the existence of a correct orientation multiple, then there are numerous imperfs and part perfs that should be immediately removed from the Scott catalogue, as there are no reported multiples. Just off the top of my head:

R11a
R13a
R53a
R69b
R80a





Historically, one of Amos Press's requirements for inclusion is a valid Philatelic Foundation certificate.

As far as a formal review and/or vetting process, if there is one I'm unaware of it. As far as I know, the ultimate decision to include or exclude based upon submitted recommendations resides with the editor, formerly Jim Kloetzel, now Jay Bigalke.

There probably should be some sort of peer review committee. However, given the myriad of collecting areas that any worldwide catalogue system covers (heck, even just within U.S. material), that could easily spiral out of control with respect to managability.

It almost would have to shift into multi-year phases, e.g., submissions from 2020 are considered through the end of 2021 for inclusion in 2022... or something like that, rather than the current model where submission, vetting, approval, and incorporation all occur within several months.

To do it right would require much more manpower than what Amos Media can currently wield, IMO.

In reply to @revenuecollector, the executive director of the PF told Jim Kloetzel, editor emeritus of the US Specialized, that the Scott catalog must include items certified by the PF as genuine. Mr. Kloetzel responded that was incorrect.

Remember, the PF offers opinions, not guarantees. And I have seen a number of PF certs in my particular area of expertise that I would disagree with.

Unfortunately, the red Warning on a PF cert is a kiss of death for resale values, and in fact, I have discovered that in some cases, sellers either did not know they existed or threw them away before selling.

Yes, there are some first issue imperfs and part perfs that are not known to exist in a multiple. However, almost all of them have been listed for many decades because there is and has been enough empirical evidence to prove their existence. Shade, paper, impression, date of use, can all be combined as evidence, and has been for well over 100 years. Some are known used on document. That is not the case here, or in one or two other "modern" added catalog numbers (and one long time listing as well, in my opinion). So an item like this one needs more evidence to prove it's existence then simply finding one with some wide margins on an issue where the perfs are well known to be all over the map.