I Think That The Buyer Of This 2nd Issue Revenue "Imperf" May Be In For A Rude Awakening

I was watching this listing and it ended considerably higher than I expected, especially given the lack of expertization and the relatively low resolution of the images. One thing I absolutely LOATHE about listings from nystamps is that while the images of the front are passable in resolution, their images of the backs of images are ALWAYS tiny, much smaller than the images of the front. Why is that, if both sides are imaged at the same time? I posit that this is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and get bidders to act upon what they (subconsciously) think they do or don't see; IMO it's a nefarious practice.

I've seen several examples of this purported stamp (Scott #R112b) in person, and own an example on document with a clean Philatelic Foundation cert.

I do not like this example at all. Yes, the margins are large, but well within the perforation tolerances of this issue, in my opinion. The jaggedness of the edges is not natural, in my opinion. Too many hesitation marks and changes of direction that one would not see in natural cuts. In fact, I believe I seel residual perforation at the lower left of the front image. Of course, were the images of better resolution, one could be more certain.

There is FAR too much doubt, in my opinion.

Looking at the bidding history, a number of high-feedback buyers contributed to the final price, so it's not just a bunch of newbies, but I personally think it is a bogus trimmed example of R112.

What say ye?

I was wondering if anyone would comment on this stamp. I saw the possibility of residual perfs at bottom left too. Very surprised at how high that bid went. Doubt it will get a clean cert. That aside, NY Stamps has has some real winners. I recall a 2nd issue 50c perf 8 that I was under bidder on. I believe that one got a clean cert.
Still a crap shoot to bid on their material.

Difficult to tell from these scans. They might be residual perfs, or the stamp might have been torn against a steel rule, which produces ragged edges. It would really have to be seen in person to know for sure.

Agreed. In my opinion if we are part of the problem (supporting them by buying from them), then we made the bed we lie in.
Don

Looking at that left side and the bottom left I wouldn't have touched it.

Upper right side edge you can almost measure the perfs.

The lower right is wider than the upper right, so if there were perfs at the upper right they would be plainly visible at the lower right.

"The jaggedness of the edges is not natural, in my opinion. Too many hesitation marks and changes of direction that one would not see in natural cuts."

I'm confused. If this were from a sheet of imperfs, wouldn't it have been cut with scissors, and wouldn't that be the reason for the not-very-straight cutting? What am I missing here? I cut things all the time when the result is not very straight.

I would think a seller whose product is stamps would put up the highest res scans he could, so as to give the bidder as much confidence and trust in the process as possible.

Every NYStamps listing also contains this warning "Some stamps could be expertly restored, regum, or repaired." No one should be surprised with what they receive.
Don

Not necessarily. If it was purchased as a part of a large multiple, it might have been separated by taking a steel rule or some other metal object and tearing the multiple into strips, and then into singles. When this is done, it creates a ragged edge that can sometimes appear to have some leftover perf holes. That is why I said earlier in the thread that the item would have to be looked at in person to make a statement about whether it is genuine or not.

I noticed this item too. Must have been a large stamp, but I would not give it a good cert.

That bidding history looks suspicious too. It jumps from $250 to $610 and then, the same bidder ups their own bid to $640 a few seconds later? I don't buy it.

Agree

Also, for a potential $600 stamp,
is that grainy image the best the vendor can do?
(or is it an SCF optimised image)

I don't buy it either, surely someone spending $600 would question things as we are here.

Or, perhaps they buy it, with the understanding they can return it
if not as described.

No. I don't host my images here. I place them on my own servers and link to them.

This seller is notorious for inferior image quality. The cynic is me says that it is deliberate, so that prospective gamblers, err... "buyers" cannot truly see what they are buying.

NYStamps recently sold a set of stamps that I had messaged them about as being fakes. I gave great detail, and their reply was "we will look into it". They sold the set to the highest bidder anyway. They do not care one bit what they are peddling.