Mint 1923 2c Harding - Scott #613 ?

perf 11x11, no flat plate ink transfer,19.25x22.50

Not all flat plate stamps have ink set-off on the back side. Some are clean.
The straight edge at right is an indicator of a flat plate printing, thus Scott 610.
Also, your images are much too small to really see anything.

Add: Also a gentle request. When replies have been made to a thread, please make future additions, corrections, and replies in follow-up posts rather than editing the original post. Such retro-editings often makes the replies non-sensical (like me requesting larger images) and out of logical sequence (like my note about set-off which was in reply to text in the original post, now deleted). Just saying. Thanks. Otherwise, welcome to the Forum!

The overlays demonstrate the image size is too small to be a rotary printing.

Yeah no problem. I went back and re-edited the flat plate ink reference. I think the overlays prove it is 22.5mm.

Welcome.
It is a #610 for the reason(s) that John gave above. In my opinion, there is no need for any other evidence.

You can also use the search here in SCF to find dozens and dozens of posts just like yours were people try to use the dimensional criteria and incorrectly come to the wrong conclusion. The dimensional tolerances are far too tight and the margin of error far too great to be reliable at all.

You can disagree if you like but at the end of the day what will matter if is you can get a legitimate certification. So if you disagree, the next step would to be send it in and then come back here and let us know the results.
Don

As someone once remarked:




We get a lot of these threads were someone drops a post without being clear whether they are asking for an opinion or trying to show an example of this stamp. In all cases, the outcome is the same. No one has come up with a credible example. All arguments to the contrary are being refuted by the poster of the stamp. Consequently it does not matter why the stamp is posted.

Rarely does the poster "threaten" to submit the stamp for expertisation. We never here from those people again.

John Becker has pointed you at the straight edge.
If you search the forum for other posts, you may notice Scott # 613 stamps tend to have visible issues with plate whiping.

People will believe you if you show the certificate that it is a #613.

In addition to the above, the perfs on this stamp are much too clean to be a 613.
http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkp

I said this in an earlier post to this thread:


I want to clarify that with this issue a natural straight edge is an indicator of a flat plate printing, and add that a stamp perforated on all 4 sides (printed by any method) could be trimmed after sale either purposely or accidentally. Thus one needs to look at all the confirming or non-confirming characteristics.

revcollector makes the following point:


However, without showing side-by-side comparisons of typical examples imaged under identoical conditions, it is hard to draw much value looking at a link showing only one type. Are comparison images readily available?

NSK carefully notes:


"tend" is important here. Similarly to add, 613's tend to be poorly centered. And to look at the reverse side also. All these characteristics vary to some extent with each 613. What will the next one look like? It may be typical or atypical. The known sample size is quite small.

Thanks guys. I mainly posted to see if anyone knew of things that would disqualify this stamp from being submitted for expert opinion. It seems as though the straight edge indicates flat plate, and if that's definitive, then its disqualified. Thanks for the info., B

However, without showing side-by-side comparisons of typical examples imaged under identoical conditions, it is hard to draw much value looking at a link showing only one type. Are comparison images readily available?

Since there are several stamps on the PF site that were submitted as 613 but were really 610, it is easy to make comparisons using it.

So the answer is "No", the side-by-side images scanned together do not readily exist.

The images are large enough and close enough that side by side is really not needed. Looking at the genuine examples and looking at the not genuine examples should be sufficient.

Sorry, but comparing hole smoothness is just "too deep in the woods" for the majority of begining or average collector to know about or know how to navigate finding images to compare. Nor is it a part of the standard philatelic literature they are likely to encounter or consult. A proprely made picture is worth a thousand words.

Anyone who wants to can copy any of the images and compare them directly if you feel they cannot see the difference by simply looking at them.

It may be possible to have (a) straight edge(s) since this is a product of the so called flat plate perforators that perforated 11 x 11. If one looks at the Siegel census, there are some copies of 594, 596 and 613 with straight edges.

https://resources.siegelauctions.co...s.php?id=235
https://resources.siegelauctions.co...s.php?id=236
https://resources.siegelauctions.co...s.php?id=237

Any examples with a straight edge are trimmed stamps, they are not natural. Straight edges on flat plate stamps were a result of how the full sheets were cut into panes, which has nothing to do with how the rotary stamps were produced.