Rarity / Treasure Hunting Online / Ebay

Like that GMC89 --"The harder we work, the luckier we get " How true, Learn that lesson many times .

Ah, yes; the "Knowing Where To Tap" story (Google is your friend).

Several of my ebay searches look for common typographical errors and spelling variants.

As an example, I am currently watching a real photo postcard which misspells the city name and additionally fails to have any relevant key words on the subject illustrated or quotes from the message. Knock on wood, but it is unlikely any of my normal competition will see it and I will get it at the start bid.

And I build searches based on "How would mom-n-pop describe it?" rather than an experienced collector.

All great different views. Really, thank you all. As I mentioned Im always learning and havent really got into the 1920 issues until now. What Im not finding is info on scott 552a being printed wider/shorter flate plate than a 552 but not as wide as a 594. That being said the 552 is taller yet still flat plat. Is there info on this or just self observation as clearly the 552a is wider/shorter/round looking. If they used a diff plate or measurement for print should be mentioned since rare 552 variations are and any reference to it would be helpful. Here is, from left to right, 552a perf 11 flat plate/552 perf 11 flat plate/581 perf ten rotary. So to my previous post scanned pic with template method looks to be correct/work, being taller but still a 552 against a 552a just still not rotary as rotary would be 1mm taller than 552a or .5mm taller than a 552. Great learning curve but wish there was more info on why the 552a is wider/shorter than 552 if anyone can reference that?..

The image size of 552 (sheet) vs 552a (booklet). Both flat plate with the image size on the plate the same size. The difference is the paper, which is dampened for printing, but the paper is turned at 90 degrees to one another for the two printing types, thus when the printed stamps dry the grain of the paper shrinks differently "with" versus "across" the grain resulting in the sheet stamp being taller and narrower, the booklet stamps being shorter and wider.

Otherwise until you get fully adept at identifying this issue, it might be most efficient to separate based on perforation rate first, then worry about image size. One will also find that the flat plate stamps tend to have some ink set-off on the reverse side where the damp sheets were stacked. The rotary press stamp will not have this set-off.

Thank you John. Yes, always do perfs first then design and deff know about the back ink set off as these things are the most basic mentioned for the flat plate printings. Though as I mentioned it is obvious the the 552a wider just wasnt aware of the different direction of print or drying. Is there a reference to this? Thank you

Scott isn't very helpful about differentiating sheet vs booklet as evidenced by them lumping the booklet versions under the sheet numbers, which leads to confusion in IDing some of the scarcer varieties especially when they litter the catalog with detailed measurement information on the sheets and coils and are silent on the booklet stamps. The booklet characteristics get described in the specialty literature, but the paper direction is the most important feature.

Very informative John and appreciate that info. I know we all want to move on from this subject but think it will be a good reference to the confusion on all the 1923 1c Franklin variations. Thats exaclty what I was thinking, detailed on the rarities and not on the basics. Also I understand, it looks as if everyone is looking for info on rarities a lot on this forum rather than just general knowledge of the standard versions of stamps. Though it is exciting to know posibilities or showing a stamp that might be rare.

Regarding Scott #596, there is at lest one copy out there to be found. Bill Weiss used to do a regular expertizing thread on another board, where brought an "unused" #594 for show and tell. It had already received two PF certificates as a genuine #594 with removed cancel; certificates #19776 and #444427. Bill had already returned it to a client before putting it up on the board for opinions as to whether it was genuine or fake. I noticed that stamp design was stretched vertically, not horizontally, making it a #596 rather than a #594 - having about ten times the value.

The likely genesis of the mistake was that there was no differentiation between either perforated 11 "coil waste" issue (actually rotary sheet waste) until around 60 years ago, when Garry Griffith (sp?) brought it to the attention of the Scott catalogue editors. The first certificate number (19776) is an early opinion and may have been given before #596 was assigned by Scott; and the later cert was simply a rubber stamp of the first opinion without checking the design size. So if this comes up for auction - snag it.

One caveat, however: to me, this #594 aka #596 looks like a #632 with fake perforation on the sides. But since the PF had certified it as genuine twice before, and it's the side perforations on a #594 that receive the most scrutiny, I don't think they would declare it fake if asked to correct the identification.

Ahhh..my good friend Mr. Tipzi. You definitely belong in this thread. You've made a few finds in your day! Like how about the find you made when you were a 14 y/o???? Hope all is well!
Ray

ray.mac, You might be interested to know he found another one recently (a few months ago) in a lot of W/Fs on ebay. Condition wasn't great by still.......

Ray, I have to apologize for dropping off the face of the earth, but in addition to Covid we've had a major home renovation that ended a year ago and which took over two years to complete. For a year we had no rear wall on the first floor for 40 feet - just plastic sheet blowing in the wind. We cooked in the master bath because the kitchen was gutted for a year. But I got to the Atlanta show last month because my older brother and I wanted to meet Larry Volovski face to face, as we've been buying from him for 40 year and had never met in person. So, I'm getting back into stamps.

I did find a #482A when I was still in high school. It eventually ended up in the Lakeshore collection and has PFC 320483. It also had a 1985 APES certificate. It has a small thin at top and a perf tear, neither mentioned on the PFC but both were mentioned on the APES cert.

I found another #482A a couple of years back, as Dave mentioned, with a pretty big tear unfortunately, which received PFC 579653.

But I've been holding out on a few things. I found a #172, the 10 cent banknote special printing back in 2013. I got it in a trade with a dealer, along with cash, for an unused #16, o.g. (PFC 507477) that I bough from Apfelbaum as a regummed #14. So, I had $1000 in the stamp at this point as a "lottery ticket". I sent it in and got a cert as a common #161 (PFC 554483). Looking at it again a few years later, I noticed some faint sapphire-blue spots on back, which under magnification I found to be the W.H.C. expert's handstamp of Warren H. Colson, a noted dealer of special printings a century ago. I resubmitted the stamp along with an image of the W.H.C. handstamp I grabbed of the internet, and got a good cert as a #172 (PFC 582310). Lessen learned: perseverance.

About 5 years ago I bought a #180 on ebay from Portugal, which is very rare and valuable. As a poster mentioned, you have to buy dozens of the common stamp (in this case #178) before finding the rare special printing. Having bought dozens of copies of #178 looking for the special printing, this stamp stood out. I also knew that #180 has a defective transfer, which limited the number of #178s that were good candidates for the special printing, so I concentrated my search there. I submitted it to the PF but after 2 years there was no opinion. As luck would have it, duirng the early onset of Covid lockdown boredom I searched through the PF's database looking for a #180 that may have been attached to mine. Sure enough, the #180 with PFC 582643 (which also has two previous PFCs ) fit the left side of my suspected copy like a puzzle piece. I sent the image to the PF and a few months later got the stamp back with PFC 569639 as a genuine #180 special printing. Lesson learned: research.

One more interesting item, and one more lesson. I bought a cover with a #519 off ebay. This cover catalogues over $2K, there being fewer than 10 known covers. The seller thought it was fake, so I got it at a good price. Why? Because the Scott specialized catalog has a footnote that states that #519 is only found from a particular pane, and the stamp on this cover has a straight edge that demonstrates it could not have come from that pane. That is, when sheets of 400 are cut into panes of 100, all the UL panes get packed together, all the UR panes get packed together, all the LL panes get packed together and all the LR panes get packed together, and are shipped to different post offices. The post office from which collectors and dealers bought what was to become the mint supply of #519 probably sold panes for one sheet quadrant only, as Scott footnotes. However, a used #519 could have been sold from any post office in NYC receiving the #519, and could be from any pane. This cover got PFC 579700 as a genuine usage. Therefore, the note in Scott is incorrect, and tragically so for one collector.

Tipzi, if memory serves, I believe you also received a good PF Cert. on your 345V which Scott delisted some years back.

I don't collect US, but that was fascinating - thank you. And clever to combine cooking with bathing.

Dave, that 345V got PFC 554524 and is the only unique regularly-issued 20th century US stamp as far as I'm aware. I currently have a pair with what appears to be die cuts being examined at the PF, so my used single may not be unique for long.

I bought the unique 320H cover off ebay and APEX certified it; it's now in Nick Lombardi's exhibit. I bid against Nick and won a #320V cover off ebay, but he ended up getting the cover with paste-up pair, the EDU, for his exhibit, so that worked out well for him.

The #320H imperforate coil is exceptionally frustrating. It's very rare yet a pair catalogues for $550, less than a used #449. Even so, there are no certified #320H singles or multiples in either the APEX or PF databases, so the Scott catalogue value can only reflect uncertified pairs, which at best might have the mark of a recognized expert from decades ago. I submitted 4 pairs to the PF that I suspect are the imperforate coil, all in the scarlet shade of the #320 International vending coil and all with parallel sides, and all four came back as the sheet stamp. As far as I am concerned, the imperforate coil #320H is unique and only exists on the cover in Nick's exhibit, as any early flat plate coil over $1000 without a certificate can't be counted.

Edit; The PF certified two 314H coil pairs I bought off ebay as the common sheet stamp, PFCs 554536 and 554538. That was 2 of the four pairs I submitted. I must know something about imperforate coils!