Scott 467 Stamp Multiple Mutilated For A Grade

I'm not sure how many of us would share Gibbons's definition of poor!

It reflects the focus of Stanley Gibbons on high-quality high-end stamps. The publish specialised catalogues that list many shades. Try to get the cheaper shades (£ 50 and lower) from them.

Their definition of 'poor' also shows why most British stamps can be bought at a fraction of their catalogue prices. Even 'poor' stamps are far above the average quality you will find on ebay, Delcampe, and Hipstamps.

Their "poor" stamp, which has four margins, with a close one at the NW corner, isn't poor by any normal standard. But I suppose it helps Gibbons with its approach, especially if it can convince some wealthy collectors of its grading.

Imperforates should at least be collected in pairs or blocks to show the imperforate attributes.
Otherwise, it's just an imperforate stamp with eight intentionally damaged/mutilated stamps around it.
It's ashame that such savage butchery of stamps is occurring without much protest from the different stamp societies, organizations, etc.

That requirement derives from the possibility that perforations have been cut off to make a perforated stamp pass for an imperforate stamp.There is no such need for stamps that only were made available to the general public in imperforate format.

The grading organizations could have nipped this in the bud at the beginning by making clear they would not grade a stamp created by cutting up multiples like this. It would not have impacted their revenue in any measurable way since it is a rather uncommon occurrence that has an outsize impact on the population of scarce and even rare surviving multiples. Rather shameful for entities to support this behavior when they cloak themselves in the mantle of being good stewards of philatelic material.

I am afraid it is more common than perhaps you realize. Usually with inexpensive stamps.

In Rumsey's WESTPEX Sale, lot 2206 Sale #108 (sold yesterday) they offer a 505 which they mention in passing that the stamp has a 1995 P.F. Certificate.



I reviewed the certificate in person yesterday and the cert was for just a single 505. So the breaking out of a 505 from the adjacent two cent stamps is not a new activity, just a growing activity.

Now the 1995 cert mentioned it was hinged and that was before grading could be requested. The hinging was obvious. So really the question is why was the single sent in for a cert at all.

Edited for sarcasm:

Perhaps one day the below 505 will be soaked off, removed from the block, graded or not, to fill a hole in someone's used US hingeless album collection



Of course, I would need to sell it or die before that could happen.

The second certificate was real? It was dated April 1st and the style was... strange. What points were they talking about?

PPG - I am in love with the cover! Westfield is close by me and so I naturally was curious about Carl E W Welcome. Turns out that he was a "Collector of Souvenir Post Cards" as well as an office supplies salesman.

So am I. Chased it for years as it was the only parcel post stamp cover with a 505. It is the only 505 on cover during the three cent WWI period and used within a few days of the rate change to three cents. It was the last (or close to it) item Stanley Pillar sold me.

Very nice cover PPG!

So the mattress has a lot less stuffing in it now.

Siegel is no stranger to offering up items suitable for cutting. Just 3 items below the 5 cent in sale 1278
is a block of 12 in sale 1256 described as "5c Carmine, Error (467). Double error in block of twelve, you could end up with two decent Mint N.H. strips"

There is a difference between cutting, which enables a number of collectors to have access to scarce stamps, and mutilation of the kind described above. For example, the famous Ceres 1 Franc bright vermilion block of four, including the tête-bêche example, was extracted from a larger block. The surrounding stamps were, of course, not mutilated.

Described here by Richard -

https://www.rfrajola.com/lafayette/page6.htm