A New Variety Of R152? (Vertical Pair, Imperf. Vertically)

R152 is known with a couple of perforation varieties.

One is completely imperforate (R152e). Here's an example of a single tied on a check (partial image but the check is complete).



Another type is a vertical pair, imperforate horizontally, on both silk (R152d) and watermarked (R152f) paper. Here's an example of the first one.



But here is what I believe to be a new discovery: a vertical pair, imperforate vertically.




It is on watermarked paper and has original gum. The center stamp has a crease and the bottom stamp has a thin.

Does this appear to be genuine to you? If you owned it, would you submit it for a Philatelic Foundation certificate?

Jim

A better question might be, what is there to prove it is a genuine imperf vertically strip?

From the scans it appears legit. Has the typical heavier line (almost double) at the top right.

Could it be a trio of imperf's that someone added a horizontal perf to?. Taking imperfs, which carry a price tag of their own and forging another variant, may seem worth it to some but not me.

Can't say I've seen one like it and would be tempted to have it certified.

Private perf?

I doubt that it would get a cert unless it is actually found as a pair imperf vertically. At best I would expect a "no opinion" on an item like this. No one is going to want to create a new variety unless it can be clearly proven.

l agree with revcollector on this one. another possibility is sheet margin strip with trimmed perfs. this issue as I recall is not hard to find with big margins.

Highly unlikely someone would have added the horizontal perfs and left the blind perfs intact. IMO, a faker would have punched out all the holes.

While R152 is by no means an area of specialization of mine, I have seen SOOOO many oversized perforated singles that even more so than with 1st issue part perfs, I would say that there needs to be an imperf pair in the correct orientation to prove its existence. Otherwise it lands in the category of EFO for me.

There are numerous listings in Scott that exist only because of certs that IMO never should have been issued. For example, after a discussion I initiated with Jim Kloetzel and Chad Snee in 2017, a note below R15a and R15b was added seeking corroborating examples, as the lone certed example of R15b comes from a pair in the wrong orientation. It was certed by the PF at a time when there was not as much revenue expertise as there is now. I've seen this "pair" in hand; Chris Harmer asked me to look at it at Chicagopex several years ago. I believe it to be bogus.

The example shown in the OP should NOT, in my opinion, receive a positive opinion.

I do collect this stamp. To my way of thinking, a part perforate or imperforate stamp from the time period of this stamp is likely printer's waste. I'm happy examples are in collectors' hands, but in the absence of examples used on document, it's hard to make a convincing argument that they were ever placed into use. An imperforate sheet might be explained as a plate proof on stamp paper I suppose, but a part perf multiple? I suspect someone was dumpster diving or otherwise managed to get an unfinished product out the door.
That said, I'd include them in my collection, but to certify one or list it in the catalog is above my pay grade.
John Bowman