SC #113: Good-Looking "Pony Express" Issue?

This may or may not be a trick question, but what are your thoughts on this specimen:



It has no visible cancel and no gum, but may have some perforation problems.

Any good guesses on a dollar value?

Thanks!

Al

To a casual viewer the perfs up the right side look like they were cut with a sharper tool. For a Grilled stamp, shouldn't the back be shown too to provide as much info as possible?

The grill does show from the front. Thus it is grilled verses not grilled. Only one grill was used so no question as to which grill. Also from the front one sees the grill is not a variety such as split, doubled, etc.

Now is does not answer the question of "dollar value" but, mint no gum is generally valued at one half mint gummed. Here the reperf takes even lower.

The perforation holes on the right side also appear to be larger in size.

Regarding the value, what kind of value are your asking about? How much you would pay a dealer, how much you may be able to sell it for? As the others mentioned, the NG and alterations (and depending upon if there are any other faults that may be observable on the back side) will affect the "value".

Nice image. I see tufts of paper on almost all paper edges between perforations, so I'd not suspect any doctoring of perfs. They appearr ragged enough as it is naturally. I'm assuming it was separated from its post office sheet 155 years ago.

I am not seeing the perforation issues that others are other than the short (pulled) perf on the left side. A lot depends on faults and centering when it comes to value. Has it been dipped to look for thins? The centering is not that great. My WAG for a value if it is fault free and there is no reperforating going on would be $50-100 depending on what day it is on ebay.

Thanks for all the good responses! (I was "AFK" for a while...)

Anyhow, here is the back scan:



Full disclosure:

I bought this stamp from the APS Stamp Store. My 2025 Scott Specialized lists the #113, unused, with no gum, at $190.00, as the original seller described it. However, it came with an existing 2020 APEX Certificate that indicates "United States Scott No. 113, used. Genuine. Left perfs to (sic) not align on the 12-66 Kliusalas guage, suggesting reperforated at left."

I'm not complaining, because it was marked down to only $15.00 - but just wondering if there should have been some mention of the "used" determination, since I don't see any evidence of a cancellation. Does anyone have some evidence that this is standard practice for unused no gum presentations? Even used, it catalogues for $90, (without the reperforation) but I'm just curious what others would consider a fair price to ask at a club auction.

Al

If it had a certificate describing it as used, it was improper for the seller (i.e., the person who consigned the stamp to APS to list) to describe it as anything other than used, at least without first indicating what the certificate said. Was the certificate mentioned in the listing?

If I remember correctly, the certificate was displayed along with the stamp, so I assumed that the original buyer requested an APEX Certificate when considering the purchase and then changed his/her mind. I think the sales division set the new price.

The original seller probably assumed it was unused, since my untrained eye doesn't see any cancellation remnants and I probably would have made the same assumption.

It is afterall a very presentable copy, IMO.

Al

It is not unusual for a certificate to mention a 19th Century stamp is used when you can see the washed out cancellation. You can contact the APEX and ask what notes they have about the determination of used. Likely the crime scope or other lighting revealed it.

If you story is correct and the APS store folks set the price at $15, $15 is a fair price with a certificate indicating used. My guess is some day the cert will be "lost" and the stamp may trade at a higher price.

Reperforation and cancellation cleaning are both alterations (read: damage) to the stamp and greatly reduce value, even the "used" catalog value.

Now what it does have going for it even when the flaws are disclosed with the certificate is that it is a well centered example. Some may pay more for such ignoring the flaws or the certificate which will be lost.

If the stamp had more value, I would resubmit to other than APEX. No offense to APEX fans but the wording on the opinion is a bit manurey. Not specifying a cleaned, lightened or light cancel when stating that the patient is used just leads to confusion. The real offense though is the wishy-washy "suggesting" word. There should be an unequivocal conclusion that the stamp is reperforated if that is the case. I would hate to see the word "suggesting" for a stamp where the delta in value between unused and used was serious money. I cannot recall ever seeing weasel words like "suggesting" in a PF or PSE opinion.

As PPG suggests it would be interesting to see the notes, if they exist. Opinion notes have been discussed at length before. They should be included with any certificate. There is zero reason not to do so.

PS: Why do some posts provide context and detail only after the initial question(s)? Why not the full story upfront?

Can't even spell gauge correctly in a certificate?

For me this stamp is obviously reperfed at right (seen from the front).

Rogdcam: I was just trying to get some fresh opinions without all the background information to influence responses.

Drkohler: (re: your P.S.) That was a transcription error on my part. Sorry, my wife was about to burn dinner and "encouaged" me to hit the post button! LOL

At any rate, I'm going to put the stamp and the cert in my album, on a special page, with a note to self about trying for a PF or PSE 2nd opinion cert. Also a word about the few tiny brown spots on the grill points in the back!

Al

Try, a uv exam front and back........ it may show up traces of a removed or lightened cancel. ....

Just a quick follow-up:

I looked at the stamp with a UV lamp and still couldn't see any cancellation remnants, so I contacted APEX via telephone and emailed a link to this thread to Sharon Shawley, APEX Coordinator at APS, and she almost immediately responded back that she had discussed the situation with the APEX Director, Ken Martin. She indicated that they pretty much agreed with rogdcam's initial comments above, and offered to re-examine the stamp, pull the original notes, and correct the certificate free of charge! So I mailed it right out.

Turns out that the original notes made no mention of the stamp being "Used" and both examiners refered to it as "Unused, no gum" - so there were a couple of significant typos along with the wishy-washy wording on the reperforation!

Bottom line:

I received my stamp back with no damage along with a nice revised certificate in the mail yesterday reading "United States Scott No. 113, reperforated at left, unused, no gum." - Still not worth a fortune, but at least my doubts are 99.8% gone!

I was very impressed with the outstanding service and professionalism I enjoyed from these two APEX folks - Kudos!!!

Al

Breefmack - Thanks for updating us and congratulations on the outcome!

PS: I would never guess that the left side was reperforated.