Find The Reperf Challenge

"How to Detect Damaged, Altered and Repaired Stamps" by Paul W. Schmid is out of print but has been digitized and is available as a PDF on disk. I can hook folks up with Paul's contact info if anyone is interested in purchasing the PDF.
Don

I have seen full sheets with holes that if the single stamps were removed would meet the same criteria that some say are reperfs. I think hole size and indications of something other than a perforator making the hole are better evidence than out of alignment or holes offline.

I will add that I am an advocate of certifying agencies of providing a synopsis of how they identified defects. A simple statement of this is reperforated because of the identification of X and Y.

" A simple statement of this is reperforated because of the identification of X and Y".

It's usually because of some combination of a lack of pressure ridges, holes that are too round and/or too clean cut, perfs that don't gauge, or perfs that are not parallel.

Sometimes it can be difficult to make any determination from a scan or picture. Having the actual physical stamp can help. Multiples over singles can also be more advantageous with this.

Now that I've seen all the evidence, including the very differing certificates which each see reperfing in different locations, someone "tidied up" this stamp with a hole punch, adding neater perforations where there were none or where they were messy. On all four sides, there is at least one perf that is much neater and rounder than the others. Real perfs are not perfectly round nor are they perfectly neat. They tend to have a slight ovaled shape and they are nearly always a bit "shaggy" where the paper was torn. Perf holes are the result of literally ripping stamps apart from other stamps. Those holes (really "half holes") cannot possibly be neat and tidy.

On this stamp, there are between 1-3 perfect holes on each side of the stamp which means someone added them. That seems completely clear to me now.

It is a nice-looking stamp, though. And those tidied-up perf holes are what the designer of the stamp and the printer intended, even if they do look too perfect, so I'm not much bothered by it.

It's always possible to get one or two "neat and tidy" genuine perf holes on a stamp. A couple of brand new pins might produce them. Scans are only useful for seeing bad reperf jobs; all others have to be seen in person.

These two certificates demonstrate the limited usefulness of certificates. Without any explanation of who examined the stamp, and how it was examined, who can have blind faith in the opinions rendered? There are no supporting measurements or microphotographs to explain either opinion, and we are left guessing in regards both the extent of the alteration and the certainty of their conclusions.

The inconsistency of the two certificates makes it pretty likely, in fact, that neither experizing agency was 100% certain of their opinion - even on the sides they did call reperforated. What about the 4th side? Was it possibly reperforated, but they didn't mention it because they can't say for sure? If so, doesn't it raise the question of how sure they were that it was even a genuine #461?

So, we have two certificates that have taught us virtually nothing other than that this stamp has probably been altered. I feel, sadly, that this is the intent of both the PF and PSE. I've heard insiders from both organizations admit that most dealers don't want any more information accompanying a cert than absolutely necessary, and that this, for political or economic reasons, has shaped their policies.

Hello, to me it looks like the TOP and BOTTOM have been reperforated, the perforations shouldn't look so straight, usually in US stamps the perforations are always uneven, that's my opinion.

This is classic example of he said she said. While the stamp in question for this ID challenge may or may not have questionable perforations. This is one of those topics that really bugs the snot out of me. It is one of the most talked about topics if not the most talked about topic as it applies to fakes, forgeries and counterfeits.

The one thing that stands out most to me is the two certification services are in-fact in disagreement would lead me to believe that they see a problem where isn't one. However this also means that it is a distinct possibility that one in-fact does exist. It's a dual edged sword if you will so what side do you fall on? Or does the owner pay for a third expertise service from a different company? If it were me I would be very reluctant to do so especially for a stamp that is over a century old. Besides is it really worth it to invest more money into it?