Public Service Warning: Bogus Rare Revenue In Upcoming Schuyler-Rumsey Auction

I consider myself a "specialist", but I never ever put myself forth as an expert. However, there are certain stamps that I have studied in depth and consider myself proficient in.

One of those is R15e, the 2-cent USIR on green paper. Most dealers have never seen one, let alone had one in inventory. Many high-profile collections have not had an example.

I've owned 3 examples, 2 of which I discovered in lots and gotten clean PF certs on. I maintain an informal census on R15e on my site as well:

https://revenue-collector.com/R15ecensus.shtml


It's an incredibly rare stamp, with under 20 examples reported as having been offered for auction in the last century.

Lot #1986 in Schuyler-Rumsey's upcoming sale #92 in June is claimed to be R15e, but it is not even close. Regardless of any scanner discrepancies, there is no planet upon which that is green paper. Additionally, the cancel is off by 2 years. It needs to be an 1866 cancel. There are examples in my census that are claimed to be R15e that have non-1866 cancels, but they have old black & white images and there's no way to dig deeper into their possible genuineness. There's one with a color image and an 1868 cancel from a 2010 Spink auction, but it had no cert and either did not sell or was withdrawn.

Additionally, the paper of the stamp in the Rumsey auction appears to be far too opaque. Genuine R15e are on a very thin, translucent paper.

I reported the bad listing to Rumsey 9 days ago, but as yet have received no reply. I would not expect them to take action based solely on my report, but I hope they are at least actively pursuing a second opinion...

But for anyone who may have been considering the lot: don't.

You are correct, but it is not the only questionable revenue stamp in that sale. I have real doubts about lots 1976, 1982, 1986, 2014, 2020, 2025, and 2173. Some might prove to be OK, but...... There are also several that might be genuine but do not have a cert, and should only be purchased with one, such as 2131 and any experimental silk papers.

I think lot 2020 could be good. Tallant & Co. is a San Francisco bank, so this could be one of the late-date California imperfs/part perfs.

I agree with you on most of the others.

Another dangerous item is lot 2082. While it has a clean PSE cert, they don't reveal that it also has a previous "decline opinion" cert from the Philatelic Foundation:

http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

The difficult thing with a possible illegal use of a Pan American, as we discussed when I previously posted a possible illegal usage of a 2-cent Pan American, is that there was only a 60-day window between when the Pan American stamps were issued (May 1, 1901) and the sunset of the revenue tax (June 30, 1901). The vast majority of Spanish American War period illegal usages are from the beginning of the tax period in mid-late 1898 when revenue stamp availability was still an issue in some locations.

2082 is really meaningless. It's an unused stamp from a revenue perspective, so there is no reason to assume the overprint is genuine. It could have been applied 20 years later and would still look just like it does. It's a curiosity, nothing more.

Thank you gentlemen. As a casual collector of US Revenues I would not be bidding on these kinds of lots but your willingness to help inform and assist the hobby is truly appreciated.
Don

I've never seen a green paper in person, but when I saw the supposed one in the Schuyler auction, I thought, "There's no way that looks anything like the green papers that Dan has shown on SCF." Thanks for the confirmation and the additional details.

Bart,

What is it with Lot 2025 that causes you concern?

Not to speak for Bart, but IMO because the perforated version (Scott #R73c) is much more scarce than the imperforate (R73a), it could be manufactured. The left-right margins are fairly tight and the perfs are rather ragged.

The top one is from Rumsey:



This one from Eric Jackson's website:



Pretty similar, no?

Yes, but the perfs are more uniform on the bottom example. I don't know that Bart was claiming it *IS* fake, just that care should be taken.

Although now that I read the listing, it says the stamp has both 2006 PF and 2020 PSE certs, so it passed muster.

I disagree with the listing's contention that the stamp is XF though.

That stamp is frequently faked; I have seen more faked then genuine example because the imperf is inexpensive and the perforated stamp is much more expensive. It might be genuine, but that stamp must be carefully checked and really should have a cert.

I must have been tired when I looked at it; I did not even see the cert notices.

I just received an email from Mr. Rumsey apologizing for the delay in responding. The R15e lot contains a normal stamp for comparison and that is the one that was scanned rather than the R15e itself. The stamp has been sent out for expertization prior to the auction.

Nice to see this thread go full circle.
Handled nicely be all concerned.
This is good philately at work.

I wonder who they sent it to.

Ditto what Rod said. Kudos to Dan and the auction house.