Harding Scott 613 Is This The Real Thing?

OK, let us replace the word patina with something that is approved. Who shall be the approving authority? Or should we just, whenever describing the condition, use the full long-winded description of "grayish coloration or "wash" caused by insufficient plate wiping". That flows off the tongue.

Honestly, the things that get people wrapped around the axle is quite hilarious. How many comments can we milk out of the "patina" controversy?



PS: Expect the word patina to arise again.

It is not a matter of "approval" or not. It is a matter of correct terminology use.

Since rogdcam wishes to quote others, here is L.N. Williams' definition of "Wiping mark" from "Fundamentals of Philately" rev ed, p252, which is a short and descriptive depiction applicable beyond black Hardings.



Sadly, this way off topic to examining rafmal's stamp, if we could ever get good images.

Indeed

Hello everyone, I hope you're doing well. I previously mentioned that I would obtain a scan, but I must apologize for not being able to do so. Unfortunately, I couldn't manage it. However, I did successfully cut one of my perforation 10 Hardings to place over the perforation 11 Harding. Here's the outcome, what do you think?

I think you haven't read any of the comments from the last time you posted the same photos. Especially the one that mentioned width is not really the issue if you are seeking treasure (Scott 613) but rather the height.

Stop the nonsense.

Hello everyone, I'd like to express that despite my years of stamp collecting, I've never quite grasped how to differentiate stamps. I used to think they were all identical, unlike you knowledgeable collectors. I tend to rely on my intuition rather than strictly following the rulebook.

Here's what I've observed: I've shared pictures of two Rotary stamps with perforations of 10/11, and they both went through the same printing press. Their colors are either identical or very similar. So, I'm wondering, when did the plate wiping process come into play for some of you? How does the size transition from a flat plate to a Rotary plate occur, especially when it needs to match the exact measurements of Rotary perf 11 (613)? But because the reference book specifies a particular color, some of you argue it can't be a 613. Have you ever considered that it might be from the very first batch ever printed, explaining the color difference?

I genuinely want to find a rare stamp – who among us doesn't? I'm not trying to claim it's a 613; I'm merely questioning because all signs point to it being a Rotary 613, except for the color. I've read somewhere that color might not be the determining factor.

All of this is causing me some confusion and stress, and I want you all to know that I don't intend to offend anyone. If I have, I apologize sincerely.
@Rogdcam.. I have read the post from you guys , im just not used to the site and when I was posting , I had a problem with the net so I could not find the post and taught it did not post, therefore I reposted.
and yes thanks to all. I think I must rather send it for certification
thanks

Be sure to post the results.

No words left. Certification show time.

Agreed, it is time to move on.

Having read all posts in this #613 post and discussion, Id have to agree in order to be certain it's a #613 is to have it certified.
Now, I shouldn't add this opinion, which is worth what it weighs(nothing), I'm currently submitting what I believe to be a #613 for certification this week. After many, many hours of study and reading everything I could possibly find on #613 identification.
I can say that should you find a #613 rotary issue and begin to evaluate the many ways given by an assortment of fairly seasoned stamp authorities, one either eliminates any questions rather quickly or continues methods found and test those methods over and over in high hopes it could actually be one. Then you pull it back out again, testing it over and over with different magnifiers etc. Personally, as foolish as it may seem to some, the over and over has been going on for well over 5 months. My experience is this:
1. Just don't tell ANYONE you believe you have a #613.
2. No matter how and with what you deduct it could be an authentic #613. NOONE will agree you have one.
3. Cannot blame them because pictures, scans or whatever form of transferring an image then posting it is simply not ever going to be clean or accurate enough for identification. If it were, there would be no need to send stamps to experts. We all could just send pictures for a certification.
4. If one ever obtains a #613 and accurately attempts to identify it in every way possible, it's very "OBVIOUS AND CLEAR WITHOUT QUESTION" what you've found. Even though there are what's called" slight differences", this differences become huge, unmistakable differences however, the fact continues to remain, that piece of paper one obtains from the professional authenticators makes the statement of " real" or " not" and only a fool would continue to debate this issue because the fact continues to be no ones knows until the service is completed by those who have discovered the methods and/or tools used to verify it.
With that being said, my final statement is: I should have remained silent !
Proverbs 13:3
The man who's lips flap in the wind brings forth his own destruction.
The man who keeps his lips together, brings forth life.

You have nothing to worry about showing your hand yet. Drooling over seeing the certification.

Note to rafmal: Your posts keep mentioning width of flat-plate versus rotary for 2c Harding. But the Scott catalog says they are supposed to be the same (19 1/4 mm wide). How come you haven't measured the height, that is different between Scott 610 and (612 or 613)?

To all: At least I saw two mentions of a true rotary stamp, 2c Harding perforated TEN (10).

But no one's mentioned what that could mean (its existence, that is). Someone sometime somewhere has tried to doctor a perforated 10 to make it a "rare Scott nbr 613." One can have and measure perfectly to find a genuine rotary example of 2c Harding (that is, an apparent common perf 10 example, Scott 612). But at least for a used copy, us average Jeans and Joes cannot casually tell if the perforations have been altered to look like a perf 11. (I'm not saying tomfoolery is not tried with a mint example, but pulling that off is a lot more difficult to try to match genuine perf 11, due to what should be a much better condition of the paper, ink, and gum compared to a used.)

Disclosure: I've had a used stamp (entirely different series) submitted to an expertizing group to learn the perforations were altered. Curious that the holders of these possible rarities like Scott 613 harp on the ink frame measurements (and original poster has yet to say a word about Height measurement, the only one that is different in the Scott catalog between flat-plate Scott 610 and rotary-plate 613).

Waiting to see the cert...

Dear Funtasy,
You seem to dismiss the fact that a number of us here have deacdes of experience with U.S. stamps and do have the ability to examine and identify the subtle differences among the black Harding stamps. Several of the participants here are the expertisers who do the examinations. I am willing to make a $20 donation to support this chat site if we ever see a post of your certificate, whether good or bad.