Pet Peeve: "Largest Known" Multiples. But Reconstructed

Time for a bit of a cathartic rant...

Perhaps it's because the collecting of multiples is so prevalent in the revenue field so I see this more frequently than collectors in other areas, but the marketing of reconstructed multiples as "Nth largest known", and then inserting them in the ranking with intact multples, annoys the [CENSORED] out of me.

Reconstructed multiples are NOT the same as intact multiples. They're just not. Two separated adjacent pairs from an original sheet do not all of a sudden become anything akin to a block of 4 with respect to scarcity or value.

Yet ebay sellers and especially traditional auction houses flog these things mercilessly.

Sure, reconstructed multiples are of value to platers, but IMO nothing beyond that other than as a curiosity... at least not to me.

"These 3 blocks combine to form the XXth largest known multiple" and other simiilar marketingspeak is just complete [CENSORED] in my opinion.

I loathe it.

What prompted this little rant: I recently acquired the Scott # R1b top margin block of 12 shown below. While it has some perf separations and other faults, it is an intact block of 12.

I went to check the Curtis Census, where it ranks as the 4th largest multiple...

https://www.thecurtiscollection.com...tampType=164

... and I noticed that #2 and #3 on the list above it are reconstructed multiples... which IMO should not be ranked as such. This block is, in fact, the second largest reported multiple, not the fourth!

*grumble*

You are not alone in this. There is at least one major first issue collector that I know well who won't touch reconstructed multiples. There are probably others.

Couldn't agree more.

This is occasionally seen in very early New South Wales issues but the description always use the R word.

Generally speaking, do reconstructed multiples fetch the same prices relative to truly intact multiples?

For the NSW material it's hard to say rogdcam.

Sometimes the reconstruction is larger than any intact multiple.

In the past, they have not for revenues. We shall see what happens here.

What is the definition of "Reconstructed"?

I have had a large multiple, separate during soaking,
the line perfs match perfectly, even the tufts of paper at tooth end.

Is that now by definition a reconstructed?

What if you have a sheet, with just perhaps 10-20 teeth joined and the rest separated?

"Intact" means ALL teeth joined?

I am fairly sure I have seen Australian multiples described (something like)
"Multiple 6d roo, support on back for part separated teeth"

Just curious.

Yes Rod, if it has completely separated then it's considered reconstructed.

The early NSW examples I've seen are imperf stamps. Sometimes they're referred to as rejoined.

If the perfs are still connected but separation has been reinforced (say, with hinges) then it's partially intact.

Thanks Bobby,
I've always wondered about that.
"Rejoined" I have seen.

They didn't teach these 3 Rs in school, but we can order the 3 Rs in terms of desirability: reinforced, rejoined, reconstructed, in that (descending) order. All of them are below a true multiple.

It might seem unfair to penalize something that hasn't quite hung together for 100-plus years, but that's all the more impressive for those items that have.

I have a few blocks with reinforcement. I wish I didn't, but I didn't pay any premium for them.

My 8d. (block of four)

Thanks Dan, for posting this. I found a multiple I just purchased last week listed there.

https://www.thecurtiscollection.com...0(imp%20hor)

I'm going to quibble slightly on a few issues.

1. What is the difference between a rejoined multiple and a reconstructed multiple? In my mind the two terms are synonymous... unless by reconstructed you mean addition of stamps not original to the multiple, but that is a different "r" word: reprehensible... rotten... repulsive... ridiculous. Slapping on stamps not originally part of the multiple in an attempt to simulate a multiple is a laughable practice and should not be condoned by anyone.

2. A "reinforced" multiple is still a true multiple. A reinforced multiple still has some perfs attached, but has had separated perforations stabilized. If ALL of the perforations have been separated, it is no longer a reinforced multiple but instead a rejoined/reconstructed multiple.

Now that isn't to say that a reinforced multiple doesn't have lower desirability or market value than a fully intact multiple, but it *IS* a true multiple.

Only a few?

I agree that a reinforced multiple is still a true multiple. Damaged, and less desirable than a "solid" multiple, but still a multiple.

I think of a "reconstructed" block or plate as something assembled by plating, etc., but not originally attached together. Not everyone may agree with that definition. In a glance at the "reconstructed" block of 16 that is above yours on the list linked in the first post, it looked to me that those 16 weren't originally one block. I didn't enlarge it and study it, but it looked fishy. Perhaps it was just a clumsy effort at reattaching?

My 2d.

This reconstructed block of 9 - R98a (3 strips of 3) hammered for $450 before buyers fee last week in the Kelleher sale / auction.


https://stampauctionnetwork.com/V/v779165.cfm Lot 1328

Here's my 2.7523 farthings worth (I adjusted for inflation).

Reinforced Multiple: two or more sections (single stamps and/or blocks) separated along perfs or torn or otherwise, but that remain connected to an appreciable extent in the same form as originally produced. If the item is repaired or "sensibly reinforced" by some means, regardless of when the separations occurred, I'd say it's fair game to use this term.

"Reconstructed Multiple" is potentially a red herring term. If two or more singles and/or blocks can be shown to have been adjacent subjects originating from the same sheet, booklet, etc., but where simultaneous usage as an intact unit cannot be proven, a fair term for describing the happy reunion of these items that lend the appearance of a multiple would be a "reconstruction," but not a "reconstructed multiple."

Rejoined Multiple: two or more stamps or blocks that originally saw use as an intact block but subsequently became separated. I'd think that such examples are few and far between, and/or that simultaneous, single usage might be hard to prove. That said, here I'm reminded of a rejoined multiple of the 30¢ stamp of 1860 which can be shown to have originated as an intact block, yet it was described as "reconstructed" in lot descriptions:

https://siegelauctions.com/lot_grd....ubmit=Search

The item was described as having originated as a block of 53, as shown in this next image, a photo from the Ashbrook archives. This appears to be the same photo illustrated in Brookman, Vol. 1, p. 263, cropped to exclude Ashbrook's notation that the multiple came from what was originally a block of 56. I don't have access to the issue of the AP that Brookman referenced regarding the larger block, but that's now on my to-do list.


[edited for slight clarifications and formatting]

That to me is just dodgy, If I were able to afford that sort of money
I'd be looking elsewhere.
How does one explain..........
A script abruptly ends at a knife cut.