Revenue Acquisitions From Last Saturday's Automated Auction At Siegel

My 3 lots from Saturday's automated online auction at Siegel came in. Initially, I was somewhat disappointed in that I didn't get the top 2 lots I originally wanted, but with further time to reflect, I'm happy with the way things turned out. Had I gotten the first lot I wanted, I would never have bid on what turned out to be the best lot I ended up with.

All 3 lots I won had aspects to them that made them attractive that were not provided in the listing; some rather egregious omissions, in my opinion. It reinforces the notion to never rely entirely on the write-ups. If there are images, video, or pdfs, do your own due diligence (assuming you cannot view the lots in person).

In the auction there were two examples of Scott #R116, the 2nd issue 60-cent documentary. The first one was identified as being the foreign entry of the 70-cent design. The very next lot was also an R116, but NOT designated as a foreign entry... but it was. Just a different plate position. It was this second example that I won.




The diagnostic points are the semicircles at left and right in the top scroll area as well as the marks within the lettering.




The second lot I got was a group lot at the tail end of the auction that had some lovely random and sundry singles, but what caught my eye were the few documents at the end, most notably a May 1863 promissory note from the Oswego Starch Factory (interesting company name), featuring both a 1-cent Playing Cards and an orange 2-cent Playing Cards stamps improperly used as documentaries. The 1-cent Playing Cards stamp is quite scarce used on document, and this is the first document I have seen with both the 1-cent and 2-cent stamps.

The due date is not filled in on the document, but assuming it was 33 days or less, the tax rate would have been 25 cents for $5,000. It looks as if the tax was initially underpaid, and then the missing 2 cents was added later (the manuscript cancel is different on the 2-cent Bank Check than on the other 4 stamps).

The R2c is unfortunately trimmed at right, but it's still a desirable document.




The final lot is one that was a bit of a head-scratcher. I don't quite know what they were thinking, or who did the lot writeup. It was a group of 1st issue major double transfers (T5 and T7).

Siegel listed the catalogue value for the group as $1375. I can only think that whoever wrote up the lot must have been using an ancient Scott Specialized, because even if you count the trimmed stamp for $0 (which I did), the total is actually $2,675... virtually double the listed value.

The lot contained some really nice examples, and other than a trimmed stamp (mentioned in listing) and one that I believe is reperfed (not mentioned in listing), they are all completely sound.

First is the trimmed stamp. It may very well be an R5b, but there's no way to be certain, therefore it must be treated as a trimmed R5c.




There were two more examples of R5c. I believe the first one has been reperforated.







A lovely example of R5a also featuring a socked-on-the-nose bold handstamp cancel:




And also one on a check:




Two nice examples of R6c, the orange 2-cent Bank Check:






A very nice example of the 2-cent Certificate T7. This one is an upgrade for the example I already had.




And lastly, the item in the lot that is the scarcest of the bunch, and yet it was puzzlingly not even mentioned in the listing: an R5b (part perf) with T5 major double transfer, on a December 1863 bank check. What makes it incredibly rare is that it is imperforate vertically, not horizontally... roughly 10x more scarce than its imperforate horizontal counterpart.




Despite being vigilant for the last 15 years, this is only the 3rd example of an R5b with T5 imperf vertically that I am aware of.

1. Michael Aldrich had one in a 2023 auction. I'm always suspicious of any part perfs or imperfs he offers, but on its face, without in-hand examination, it looks viable.




2. An example on a fragment of a Wells Fargo document that I purchased from Eric Jackson back in 2012.




And now this third example. Incredibly rare, and on a complete document to boot!

So all in all, despite the auction not turning out the way I had planned, I'm more than content with the results.

The second foreign entry is position 31. I saw it immediately but I have one already. I have 4 positions and 6 total, all purchased as normal stamps. You are right in that the vertical part perf is very scarce indeed.

Congrats.

I'm glad the double transfer lot went to someone who can appreciate it. I saw it, but didn't know enough about how to value it.

The value of an item like that is truly "what one is willing to pay for it". The catalog value is reasonable for a horizontal imperf off document; I bought one in the Bleckwenn sale at Siegel. But on document? It's all feel. I have a perforated double transfer on a check, which is scarce but not close to this level. I paid about 1 plus 2/3 catalog for it and though that reasonable, but it was accurately described.

Thanks. I definitely understand that concept from other areas that I collect, where I do know what I'm doing.

With revenues, I am just starting out, rather slowly - but I enjoy them.

Thank you for posting your Siegel auctions wins revenuecollector and describing them to us, along with your introduction. I very much love revenue and tax stamps (match and medicines as well), but I'm still very new at collecting them. I learned lot more just from reading your post today. Thanks.

great double xfres

that one is certainly reperfed at top (lower in the middle than the sides)

Which one?

The one right below the trimmed one.

Yes, that stamp has been reperforated.