Help With Ceylon Identification

Stumped on this one. Scott design A2, perf 12.5 (although my perf gauge really thinks it is 12.75,) but with watermark 6 (SG wmk 1) which is apparent. The problem is I can't find a stamp that meets the criteria with of perf 12.5 with this watermark in either SG or Scott. Based solely on the watermark, this stamp should be a Scott 13, 24 or 35 or SG 12, 27 or 37 which is listed as an imperf or perf 14-15.5 in both catalogs.

Every other type of this design that is listed as perforated is listed as perf 14-15.5 and has some variant of a crown and CC watermark.

First guess as usual is user error and I'm missing something in both my Scott and SG catalogs.

Edited only to say that I wonder if someone added perforations to an imperforated stamp, but that seems a rather odd thing to do and I don't think the margins on these stamps would allow for that.

Just looking at those perforations makes you doubt they are genuine.

I'd agree NSK; just seems odd that someone would add perforations to a stamp. Maybe simply trying to create an oddity out of boredom?

Adding perfs to an imperf would lower the catalog value so that makes no sense.

It makes no sense unless you want to create an unlisted variety.

As Don would have done ... to compare perforation rows on opposite sides, aligning the holes at top and left....

The gauge is off by some margin for this watermark.

Although reperforation would be possible, why in a different gauge? What is the conclusion when opposing sides appear to have slightly or even marginally different gauges, all way off the known one?

The Official version of this stamp, Scott O7 was perforated 12.5 but it had a red overprint and the watermark is wrong.

Well, thank you for the photos pasted together John Becker. Am going to just chalk this up to someone playing a prank. That would in some part explain why my perf gauge worked better on 12.75 than 12.50 for this example. Probably some knucklehead playing around and laughing that some future collector would end up scratching their head with the "what the heck is this?" If so, they ruined what would be an early Ceylon with really nice margins.

I don't know early British stamps all that well, but guessing if this were a specimen or trial stamp of some sort it would be marked as such? Then again, doubtful it would be postmarked if a specimen so will ask the same question to another group but doubt there will be the level of expertise here.

As always, appreciate everyone's time.

Specimen stamps were distributed to other postal authorities and marked as such. Trials, proofs, and essays tend to be well-documented.

Forged watermark to me The star is too pointed and the rays are narrow...
genuine wmk:

Forged perforations I'd say.

As for the watermark, weren't the bits handmade? You'd expect some variance if so.

The watermark does look a bit suspect to me; but how does one forge a watermark? And why would someone then make a perf 12.5/or 12.75 stamp with a forged watermark?

Just spitting in to the wind with the questions of course; but Rog made a good point, why would some one take a stamp with a cat value of over a grand and mutilate it?

Think I have the answer. Dropped the stamp in some watermark fluid and it is pretty obvious that someone took a Scott 13 that had been trimmed and dropped another trimmed stamp around it. The dark spots that showed up (at least to me) are a dead giveaway.

There is a 1920's forgery of this stamp with an impressed watermark. Anything can be forged/faked.

None of this makes sense. All of this work to get a stamp with perfs that raise alarm bells?