At least not in my opinion.
I already had one person email me after the
ebay auction ended earlier today, asking about it:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/364917194691
What I responded to the person who emailed me:
Quote:
I saw it, but until it gets a clean PF certificate as a true part perf, IMO it is an EFO. That cancel date and color shade is far too late for it to have come from the period when part perfs were actually produced. It's a late state printing.
It's a top or bottom margin example where the sheet was also misperfed, creating oversize singles. It's similar to R69e, which for years was treated as R69b, but the color was all wrong. The footnote now reads "No. R69e is an error from a pane of stamps that was intended to be issued fully perforated. It can be differentiated from No. R69b by the color. paper and date of carcel. Expertization is strongly recommended."
It's probably not contrived/faked IMO and it's lovely as an EFO, and the winning bid isn't unreasonable, but it's not a part perf, in my opinion.
R15b was listed for many years in the Scott Specialized, but that listing was based upon a cert for a horizontal pair, i.e., the wrong direction:
http://pfsearch.org/pfsearch/pf_grd...lledfrom=lkpAll subsequent submissions to the PF were judged to be trimmed R15c.
Back in 2018 I asked Jim Kloetzel to put a notice in the Specialized Catalogue asking for a legit example, to which he agreed and the following footnote ran for several years, and since no evidence ever came to light, R15b was delisted:
Quote:
The existence of Nos. R15a and R15b has been questioned by specialists. The editors would like to see authenticated evidence of the existence of these varieties. A horizontal pair, imperforate horizontally, has been certified, but that certification is very old, and the item requires reconsideration and a modern authentication if found to be genuine. This item probably is a perforation error.
I see nothing about this particular stamp that changes my stance.
Posted 06/04/2024 7:21 pm
