1875 Pr Series Catalogue Description Question

so I recently purchased a US PR series (Newspapers and Periodicals) stamp. It was marked as " (star)" in the catalog which by their legend is "unused, no gum/regummed". In the item description is reads, " without gum as issued, post office fresh, with clean smooth color on absolutely fresh paper; sound, Etremely Fine to Superb. Question: I was a sort of shocked to see a hinge remnant. Should that have been called out considering the description? Guessing if it were that (never hinged) it would have been 2 stars (Mint Never Hinged)...
Their Grading and Condition goes on to read: Superb - Extraoridinary item in the finest condition and Extremely Fine as - Outstanding and exceptional quality.

I just did not expect to see a remnant considering the above. Thoughts?




*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

A remnant should be mentioned, but is hardly surprising on these. You should be able to remove it with some water and a small artists paint brush.

Thats kinda what I was thinking..... Weird. Another stamp had a tear that had been repaired and wasnt called out. But they said due to the word "faults" in the description, that was to be expected.

This particular stamp was very expensive so im almost inclined to call them on it. Just a little shocked I guess.

If you are happy with it otherwise, I would just remove it.

It looks like someone signed it a long time ago and the signature has faded.

If it's "unused, no gum as issued", I'm not sure the presence of a hinge is relevant. Of course, if the hinge is hiding something ...

tks all - this is only the 2nd auction I've ever participated in - so still learning and I was hoping to find out what is "norm". I was just expecting to have it mentioned if there was a remnant.

Might keep this thread going as now I have stamp described as PR61(var) but its actually a 9¢ not 8¢. So to me that would be catalog "unlisted".

yes. cant make it out - I see a j and a m I think. cant read the name

Your 8 cent newspaper stamp is either PR14 or PR38.

This stamp seems a bit small, and the perfs seem a bit round; I wonder if it is a proof that has been played with.

not sure. doesnt seemed to be noted in the certificate. should be 24 x 35mm, right?

I'm talking about the 9 cent that was posted just above.

me too.

Left side perfs digitally compared to the the other sides


Don

ahhh. Well thats disappointing. Im guessing you duplicated the L side and cut and pasted to expand them then made the comparison? Is that how you got them to be longer? So as mentioned, the cert from PSAG mentions nothing about this - just genuine unused, og, never hinged unlisted cat no.. While the auction cat states, og, never hinged, Post Office fresh, very fine, only known example of the 9¢ value

Hummm. Now im really stumped. I think that the auction house would be obligated to state these things. But im guessing thats why they put in "as is". So they go to the trouble of stating one of a kind, superlative singular example but dont mention that its maybe been buggered with ??? But it has no cat. number, so who knows whats its suppose to be. Either way I would think that the perfs are to match.

tks . I dont have the 8¢. what I meant was that they lited the 9¢ as a varaint of the 8¢ and not as unlited catalogue number. I dont see how this can be a variant of a 8¢ when its an unlisted 9¢. Seems confusing to me.