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

Just a quick post to remind people that there are a lot of very fine and scarce revenues that are included in this sale, and that it is an outstanding group with many items not often seen.

Well that was... interesting. I sat through the 1st three revenue issue lots today and went 0fer. Completely shut out. The results were stupidly strong. I can only think of 1 or 2 lots that went for opening bids. The quality/grade of the material was exceptional and the results bore that out. No bargains to be had, at least in the first 3 issues.

Apparently people believe PSE certs. Lot 1982? 1987 with an 1868 cancel? 2001- I can't tell where that cancel was from, but? 2011???? not all that scarce, even with those margins. 2020 with an 1868 cancel? 2082? 2131 without a cert? I hope it goes in for one. 2142 without a cert? I hope it goes in for one as well, and there are a few others that should get one.

Yeah, it would be good to know who the expertizers were on some of the PSE certs. I assume they did the expertizing inhouse, as I find it hard to believe Eric or Richard would have given clean certs to some of them.

#1976. 1866 cancel sets off alarm bells.

#1982. Color shade is lighter than I would expect to see on a genuine example and the 1866 cancel date sets off alarm bells. It looks to be a bottom sheet margin misperf as you can see part of the bottom margin imprint.

#1987. The 1868 cancel is typically a disqualifier, but the color is within the realm of possibilities for a genuine part perf. I would love to see this one also get sent in for a PF cert.

#2001. Color looks ok, margins are hunge, but man, an 1872 cancel? That's even later then all of the California imperfs I've seen.

#2011. Somebody paid for the grade number on the cert.

#2020. I mentioned this one before. I'm going to give this one the benefit of the doubt as the color is good, the margins are large, and Tarrant & Co. was a San Francisco banking house, so it falls into line as one of the California Imperfs/Part Perfs.

#2024. Pretty stamp. I bid on it, but was quickly passed up. Not as common as the catalogue value implies, and certainly not in this condition. Again, assuming it is a legit silk paper.

#2043. I was the underbidder on this one. I still need a nice example of the DT; mine is beat up.

#2046. Beautiful stamp. Someone got a lovely example.

#2047. Also a lovely stamp. Decent value on this actually.

#2048. Someone will make money on this one. Good aesthetics on this one. Biggest question is the size of the margin tear.

#2060. Another one I bid one but got away from me. Still less than it sold for in a Spink auction years ago.

#2074. I wanted this one, but quickly soared out of reach.

#2082. Far too much for a curiosity that cannot be authenticated in any way.

Pity that 1043 had the bottom imprint removed, that is the position of the DT.