Scott #5 Census Update

The Wagshal census for Scott #5 includes 96 examples (Siegel repeatedly states that it contains 98 examples, but there are only 96 in published version https://siegelauctions.com/display_....php?cid=290. There are supposedly 10 to 12 additional examples that have been found since the Wagshal census, but I haven't seen that they are documented anywhere. Does anyone have a compilation of these with images and descriptions?

The last #5 sold at auction appears to be the one discussed on this forum - https://goscf.com/t/71522&whichpage=1

My interest in this came about when I noticed that Irving Miller has a #5 listed on his website that has a PSE certificate, but isn't in the Wagshal census. Irving tells me he discovered in a collection that he bought. I'd be curious what thoughts others have regarding this stamp, and should the lack of a provenance be a concern?

Looks genuine to me. I don't see recut at bottom and plumes /scrolls bottom look legit at first glance.
No secret mark left border so not Scott 40, nor does look like proof

Would have been nice if PSE described some of the "tiny faults" since it is a rare/important stamps . Is there a tear , creases etc? there is some weird semicircle extending from Franklins eye downward toward hair. Some soil or stain at top as well, small tear left margin.

That being said, a good pen could magically make recut indistinct, add some ink to plumes, scuff out some plate bruising at top. Can make a 7R1L look like a 7R1E with some manipulation.

But I doubt it. Regardless I would want to examine this stamp in person as the description by PSE is inadequate for me to understand faults that are obviously present

New discoveries do happen. The cert should answer anyone's question.

When I first looked at this PSE certificate, I wondered if it was a fake. I did check it's authenticity at PSE website and it is real.

I can't believe the most highlighted area of cert is "GRADE: ungraded, used" smack in middle.

This suggests PSE is more concerned about grading than anything else.

Not my cup of tea.

A stamp like this is an important find and the certificate should stress its authenticity.

rgstamp - My thoughts and yours are almost the same. I can't see the small tear in the left margin that you mentioned - maybe you could pinpoint that to me. As for authentication, you didn't mention the prominent double transfer at the 7R1E position, and which is very evident in the images. My understanding is that the double transfer is the most difficult identifying feature to fake, so if it has been drawn on, it was very professionally done.

I think that the stamp is quite likely genuine, but I agree that the faults, even if "tiny", should be better described. According to the PSE standards, if the faults were "Extremely minor", they wouldn't have even been mentioned on the cert. I hope Irv Miller will submit it to the PF for a 2nd opinion.

No one seems to have any idea about how we can get a census of those #5's outside the Wagshal census. I wouldn't even know how to begin that research.

There are new finds of all kinds of things that occur either regularly or from time to time, depending on the item.

A friend of mine has found two #5's over time. One of those is likely in the census - I haven't checked, the other is probably not.




I'm assuming you mean #5 and not #5A, as I'm unaware of a published #5A census.

Regarding censuses in general, they are something that many specialists perform themselves on a regular basis for stamps, covers and varieties-thereof, that they collect.

This is also true for an expert trying to authenticate a stamp or cover - you want to go look for similar items that exist and make comparisons, to help validate the subject or condemn it. Also, as a buyer, I perform this process before purchasing almost any cover these days.

For example, I used to be an active collector of varieties of the 1c stamp, and to take censuses to the extreme, I would go count number of copies of a particular plate position on plate 3 that I could locate anywhere. This, in particular for notable varieties on plate 3, such as double transfers, plate cracks, imprints, centerline copies and multiples.

How does one do it? Understand your subject matter, obtain or get access to auction catalogs, exhibit photocopies, books and periodicals over time with articles about this, and just look. These days its a bit easier since so much is online.

Siegel may, internally, have a record of #5's post-Wagshal, since I believe that Scott published Jerry's census. You could ask them directly.

edit: a healthy philatelic library centered around what interests you is of significant help here for this. Online resources have improved a lot, but many older auction catalogs can still be difficult to locate online.

I'm sorry ...I meant tiny tear? right margin/edge of stamp below Franklin's chin
May be a hole not a tear.

The double transfer is still present almost exact on 7R1L Scott 9 as 7R1E so it would not have to be faked.

Don't get me wrong... if I found this stamp in an old album I would be celebrating for weeks!

The stamp looks totally fine to me. It wouldn't concern me in the least that it doesn't have a provenance. Surely there are still others out there yet to be discovered. As far as the graded cert goes, it is also completely fine. The grade is all certain collectors need to know, be they certificate collectors of high-end stamps or just dumbed-down versions of the former. If a collector wants a better #5 they just need to look for a stamp graded 75 or better. You don't even really need to see the stamp. Also, there is no such thing as a certificate that lists and describes every fault a stamp has. You may only see the worst fault described or just a call mentioning several small faults.

Rgstamp - the strong doubling in the right top corner tells you without question, that this is a genuine 7R1E. The completeness of the balls and plumes only further coo-borates this. I have the Wingate example in my collection, because of the completeness of design, and the absence of any discernible cancel. I personally feel that the single most important requisite on Scott #5 is the presence of all the type characteristics, all of which are unique to Type 1. Irrespective of the cert, the above example clearly evidences these characteristics (completeness of all design elements), so I'm not certain why it would ever be called into question.

I agree. Stamp looks good

However I don't trust PSE . I have been studying these top row stamps.

Anyone can take a pen and draw in plumes at bottom and strengthen bottom curve to make look like no recut.
Easy to make a Scott 9 7r1l look like a Scott 5 7R1E

I doubt PSE would miss such chicanery but I have seen too many errors to trust 100 percent
Thus, I question every possible stamp

Oh yes... forgot to say... a manuscript cancel 7R1L with creases and faults is the perfect stamp for the fakers to alter since it has little value as a Scott 9.

I see altered stamps in many auctions just in last month with newer certificates, not just PSE certs.
Perhaps these are my opinions so could be gray area... but in my mind they are intended alterations to improve stamp that are not called out on cert. many of these recents stamps I see at auction are being certified by places other than PSE

That leaves two, the PF and PSAG?

Apex, Crowe & Weiss.

Really?

Yes really. Just possible certs seen.

"I see altered stamps in many auctions just in last month with newer certificates, not just PSE certs.
Perhaps these are my opinions so could be gray area... but in my mind they are intended alterations to improve stamp that are not called out on cert. many of these recents stamps I see at auction are being certified by places other than PSE."

"newer" would not indicate Weiss and I cannot recall seeing a 5 with an APEX cert but I could be wrong. Crowe is a possibility.

PSAG comes to mind... seems to have infiltrated big time into major auctions