Fake Cancels Added To Highly-Graded Stamps

Orstampman,





Indeed. I think the basic problem is the stigma that "slabbing" has in philately. The purist will always argue that rare stamps belong in albums, and not slabs. In this context, I am using "slabbing" as a generic term involving the encapsulation of stamps in plastic, though certification/grading does not have to involve that, of course.

When you have an ultra-common stamp with uncommon centering and preservation, most purists will consider this a marketing tool to generate extra value out of something that is not valuable, on its face (no pun intended).

Still, as long as there is a market for such, people will pay a large premium, if that's what they collect.

There is no future in making value judgments on what people collect, or not. It's like a mouse chasing a piece of cheese on a treadmill. We have gotten nowhere after the argument is finished.

John

Off topic, but the topic has devolved a bit.


Indeed, take tonight's Kelleher sale 5186 lots 8051-2, 8062, and others. These are imperforate plate singles of 481, 482, and 577 that were undoubtedly cut down from plate blocks to make "100J" singles. The funny thing is, a NH plate block of 6 catalogs for $45 for each of these, the SMQ for a "100" single is $75-90, and the current bids on these 3 100J singles are from $50 to $180 each. With these economics, I wonder what the supply of NH imperforate plate blocks will look like in a few years.

Grading has already seriously reduced the quantity of scarce, rare, and unique multiples significantly. If the grading firms would just call those types of items "damaged blocks of 9", the problem would be solved.

Browsing Siegel auctions coming up, couldn't help but notice a wavy lines cancel on a 1789b. Checked previous sales and another one was sold with an almost identical cancel.

The cancel was still common at the time, and there are at least 3 examples with wavy line cancels. I would think that the VSC6000 was utilized to examine them.

Given that the Siegel stamp has a 2022 PF certificate I would think that the cancel is genuine.

My thoughts too, just seems odd that the placement of the cancels are nearly identical between the 2 examples.

Caspian - I wonder if they were a pair at one time or came from the same envelope.

Roger got it (assuming the two stamps separated and then applied to envelope)?


Don

Assuming that they were a pair, would the top line on the left stamp just stop where it did?

(And, as a corollary, would the bottom line on the right stamp just start where it did?)

(This question is unencumbered by any attempt at hunting up the actual canceller.)

Good question...
Nor can we assume that the two stamps were affixed right next to each other; there well could have been space between the stamps. I was only trying to illustrate that not just the pattern but also the color (heaviness) and graininess of the strike was similar.
Don

I have my doubts. Specifically, standard canceling machines imprint quite close to the top edge of an envelope (as the envelope moves along its top side through the machinery). Any legitimate machine cancel would necessarily have to be quite close to the top of the stamp, NOT across the middle. The central positioning is suspect.

Wouldn't that depend a lot on the size of the envelope?

It would not. To elaborate further, because envelopes come in all sorts of heights/widths, the cancelling machines are designed with the heads inverted and for the mail to pass through upside-down, thus the cancels are placed a consistent distance up from the bottom of the feed-stream, The result is an output of mail with the cancels upright and a consistent distance from the top. To achieve a central cancel such as the singles illustrated, they would have been folded over the top of the envelope.

So obviously John's point is valid whether the cancelling machine was being used by USPS or in the hands of someone else. To my hobbyist eye these look machine applied, could they be hand applied?
Don