1434-1435 Red Flag Missing

These come through ebay from time to time, always without a cert. They are always just a red shift into the black background that "tricks" people into a possible omit error or a flyspeck/shift error but never seemingly the real thing. ckstamps unloads them all the time, like here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/CKStamps-U...353807924992

This post from back in the day, Hotchner talks about them.
https://www.efocc.org/Resources/Hot...C=1985-12-09

Now the latest Raritan auction juat popped up, but this time it's different, there is a cert from 2011.

https://www.raritanstamps.com/Catol...Inside=178-1

Not sure what to think on this. Is it an oversight, an alteration, or somehow the real deal. The latest Scott catalog of errors
warns---
Caution: The flag on the lunar lander
is often shifted into the lander and is not visible. Examine carefully. Never got an official Scott listing...

When I searched this on pfsearch: interestingly 2 more certs came back:
cert 450005 confirming its existence
cert 279543 a failed cert with a similar but I believe different zip block

Assuming higher number is newer... But I
want to make sure something was once perceived wasn't overturned and folks didn't trash the certificates. Not sure what to make of this whole thing. Stamp in Raritan is an even smaller 3x3 block...

Anyone have any other insight?

Under extreme magnification, I see a hint of red on the lander image. This is to say, I copied the image to my laptop and then enlarged 466%.

The location of the hint of red in the black is where you'd expect to see the stripes when you see how out of register the red is on the astronauts' image. There the red is shifted down a bunch but not much to right.

Conclusion, once in hand and examined I think you'd be facing a shift.

I like the 2011 APEX Cert copy; no shifting question just missing ink. This likely when printed was printed on a number of sheets. From the cert you know which column to check and only a few possible rows.

Parcel post guy, thank you again for your insights! I agree with you on the ebay one I referenced. Totally see the red. I have a similar block of 6 that is shifted in a similar manner.


You mention out of register... Which brings me to two examples of misregistered on ebay to use as a study comparison. These are quite awesome EFO's actually, particularly because they show how the stamp is composed.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/383182059235
https://www.ebay.com/itm/383602941411

Both of these give an indication of how much actual red is really used on those stamps. Do I think the red on the flag is omitted? Wholeheartedly yes. Do I think there is red anywhere else on the stamp? That's a much tougher question.
Implying a middle pane ink starvation error that involves a black background and a ton of microscopic dots? That I just don't know what to think as it's clearly not a transitioning issue, as the neighboring stamps are rich in red.

So to summarize both PF & APEX found 2 stamps within blocks that they deemed color omit red. Does one just accept this, or would a 10 year old apex cert ultimately fail to hold water if this stamp underwent some sort of modern color computer ink analysis that was unavailable, or didn't show up in magnification approaches? I don't know what to think.

The Raritan listing is worded in a way where I believe the difficulty is known here. "Central stamp of the block (No.1434) has red color (stripes of the Flag) omitted". Their terms of auctions specifically state - "Any lot, description of which is incorrect may be returned within 14 days of receipt, intact for a full refund." By them adding (stripes of flag) in, makes this listing problematic for a return if you find red. Not sure you can overturn a var cert either. If I examine the lot, that means I can't return it either...grrr

Might be a headache...

I can't speak to the PFC but even way back (LOL) in 2011 the APEX used microscopic examination for dots of ink. Their cert for that error should be good then, today and in 2031.

Edit: I direct your attention to the Olympic ring flaw which also occurs in the middle of a pane, US Scott 1460.

So raritan sold this stamp for $1000 in 2022.

https://www.raritanstamps.com/Catol...ex.php?MA=92 lot 178

It hammered a couple of weeks ago at a Siegel sale for $550 without competition. I think the lack of Scott listing it, and historical warnings about it, have obfuscated its potential valuation. On this most recent flip, someone lost half their value in about 2yrs.

It is now on ebay for $1250 by a well known error dealer. https://www.ebay.com/itm/387779772247

I guess a lesson to be learned in realizations is due here. Sort of highlights how selling your wares at a premiere auction is not necessarily going to bring you better results. In fact buyers here might be even more discriminating, and not have liked the unlisted var. Sort of highlights another recent thread regarding consigning and working with dealers or selling to the house.

As to Scott not listing the block of nine APEX certified error, they need to see the certificate (e.g. send them a copy) in order to list it. As they, Amos, also has the Datz error book it should be included in that as well.

Siegel does well with 19th century and some early 20th century, but for the modern, post 1920, material their results are not as good.

Another Siegel sale at another time may have realized $2,000. Auctions can be fickle. There was a Kelleher sale that was held during a massive blizzard where I scooped up a few bargains because the floor bidding was slim to none. Siegel still has a strong floor bidder contingent so who knows. I wouldn't let one sale paint a picture. If the ebay listing sells for $1250 then we have yet another outlook, this one positive.

Plus, the item was in the Siegel "paperless sale" with the automated (AI) auctioneer, right? Not at a live auction with a live auctioneer and floor bidders who can look at the item and decide for themselves that it is a genuine and possibly unique error. At the live auction, Scott can rally the crowd and energize the bidding in a way that the computer voice auctioneer does not.

I also expect it would have done better with a higher estimate considering the rarity, and a modern PF certificate.

I purchased the error in the Siegel sale. It sold in just a few weeks.