Are There Any Differences Between Scott 120 And 130 Besides The Grill?

This stamp was included in a rather nice collection as a 130. I see no sign of a grill. Is there anything else I should be looking for? I guess I'll need to send into the PF if people think it looks legit. I doubt anyone would buy without cert. Opinions?

(P.S. the top looks reperforated)

Check for the presence of original gum. Only buy those with OG present. Easy to press out grill when gum is gone; impossible with OG.

Per Scott catalogue: "Stamps of the 1869 issue without grill cannot be guaranteed except when unused and with the original gum or traces of the original gum"

Comparing the top/bottom and sides against each other:

I think the only way you are going to know for sure is if you send it for an opinion.

Strong impression, bright colors, uneven perfs, lack of perf fibers......I suspect that it is a proof with cft. perfs and gum.

I would send it in, just in case, but expect back an altered proof due to strong impressions, clear reperforating and the nature of the gum. If it comes back good, I think you will live with the reperf, correct?

Beautiful stamp. The detail of the engraving is amazing. I could stare at it for hours. What incredible skill to produce such artwork in less than a square inch, and to think that this was made in 1869/1875. Compare that with any of the self adhesive stamps (stickers) produced today.

The 130's found in Siegel Power Search also have a nice crisp impression compared to many 120's, I wouldn't jump to conclusions based alone on the bright crisp printing. But the bleed through of the image on the reverse is more indicative of an India proof versus the normal stamp. How does the paper thickness look and feel compared with say a 114? Not an exact fair comparison since the paper on the 1875 is different from the 1869, but India paper is different from both. Or compare the paper with the 124 that you posted here about 5 years ago, did you ever send that one in for a cert?

I would vote a strong no against India paper. The stamp appears to have gum and doing that to India would be a nightmare unless you backed the India paper with other paper but then you would not see the design through the back IMO. Handling my India paper proofs is a gentle process.

Thanks for the suggestion to check the gum carefully. It's a regum. I think that rules out 130 already. Now the question is 120 or proof. But reperforated on two sides and regummed smells like proof.

India paper can also be stiffened chemically, and then regummed. I do not know the exact details, but I do know that it is possible and I have seen examples where it was done, probably many decades ago.

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. Siegel has sold plenty of unused 130's with no gum that have a cert. If you don't send it I may buy it from you.

Sat on this topic overnight and am positive a proof can be ruled out for many reasons not least of which is:

Why go to the trouble of creating such an off-center stamp. There is also the "reperforated" issue. How can it be "reperforated" on two sides if the perforations were all created in the first place.

If I had this stamp I would 100% submit it.

I agree it should be sent for a cert.

I'm agreeing with these comments. Looking closer, it is not india paper and there is no wove paper proof other than the Roosevelt and this is clearly not that. Also the point about reperfing is right. So I guess it's probably a 120, but ok - I shouldn't rule out 130. I am in the process of collecting a few stamps to send in. This will be one of them. Thanks all.

And of course report back on this thread, please.

I must have missed something in the thread to understand how you came to that conclusion. The stamp appears to have no grill, and the ungrilled #130 is significantly cheaper than the grilled #120. Assuming unused (no gum/regum) the #120 is $3000, the #130 is $1000 (2024 specialized). Whether it is worth 5% of CV to submit a regummed reperfed stamp with perfs cutting into the design is up to you. If it were mine, I would mount it as a #130 and be happy, not bothering with a certificate.



Because a $140 #120P3 can have fake perfs and fake gum added to possibly fool someone that it is an $8000 OG #120 that "can be yours for just $799". An off center reperfed 'stamp' might have started out as an off center proof (uneven/narrow margins).

Most of the reperfed proofs that I have seen are poorly done - they are perfectly centered with crisp perfs and jump out as obviously fake. Creating one that is off center wouldn't set off as many alarm bells that the stamp is too good to be true, and it might even help justify the "sale" price of just $799.

I am not trying to argue that the OP stamp is a reperfed proof, after the OP's paper analysis, just answering the question.



True, what we call a 'reperfed proof' is a shorthand abbreviation of what the PF may call "India proof with fraudulent perforations added".

That said, a normal perforated sheet stamp with a natural straight edge that has fraudulent perforations added is still called reperforated, no?