Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Scott makes note of this for some countries like Portugal. For the first perforated issue of Portugal in 1867 Scott makes this statement: Nos.25-33 frequently were separated by scissors. Slightly blunted perfs on one or two sides are to be expected for stamps of this issue. I have also seen this done on some of the U.S. 1867 issues as well. Since this was done by official agents of the Post Office it could be argued that this might not be considered as damage. Today I received 3 stamps that unquestionably were separated in this way. I already had an unused copy of the one and thirty cent stamps but the 90 cent stamp has eluded me all these years. Although it is a flawless printing I still have to regard it as a space filler. It is a very interesting stamp as up until it's issue the highest denomination of a U.S. stamp was only 12 cents. It seems the P.O. might have been premature of it's need of being used as there appears that not many were in fact used. This would explain the large gap of values between mint and used copies. The stamp mint is a mere $3,000 while used examples catalog at $11,000. Even though I must consider it a space filler, I'm a very happy camper in filling that space. The auction gavel threw down at $55.00 for the three.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Interesting information....This will have me examining my early US stamps more closely
Login to Like
this post
Hi Antonius,
Do these have full, original gum?
The stamp would first have to be certified as having original gum. If they did, it could then be argued that it is likely to have been done in a PO but I see no way that it could ever be proven when it had actually been cut.
For example, a few years after they were issued a collector might have had a multiple. Given the very close margins, they used scissors to fetch the widest margin stamp he could and these were the 'left-overs'. And as strange as it sounds, early on there were collectors who 'cut to shape' (just like postal stationery).
Do you have some other evidence that can definitively prove they were cut in a Post Office like this?
Don
Edit: After thinking about this a bit more... I am not sure that the hobby or marketplace would ever consider these anything other than space fillers. They are damaged stamps, does it really matter when the damage occurred? Suppose a PO clerk threw a block of stamps in the bottom of the drawer, the stamps got scuffed, torn, creased and/or soiled.
Does this mean that today we consider them as anything other than damaged stamps?
Login to Like
this post
"I am not sure that the hobby or marketplace would ever consider these anything other than space fillers."
I agree with that.
However, there are instances when stamps have been damaged by postal authorities, and the damage is not considered to be detrimental to the value of the stamp. Two examples quickly come to mind:
Afghanistan - Early stamps of Afghanistan up until 1891 were canceled by a postal clerk tearing off a piece of the stamp.
Bangladesh - In 2007, Bangladesh printed for issue a miniature sheet of six stamps for Bangladesh Flood Relief. The upper left stamp in the sheet contained a picture of the Prime Minister. He ordered the stamp removed from the sheet as he did not give permission for his image to be used. The sheet was issued as a sheet of five. The removal of the stamp was done by various means. scissors were used, the sheet was torn. or a combination of means to remove the stamp from the sheet. The sheet is not considered damaged with the missing stamp, unless another area of the sheet has a problem.
Login to Like
this post
I think Don is making the case that it is impossible to tell the difference between a stamp scissors cut by postal authorities and those scissors cut by a company employee handling stamps on behalf of their employer or a individual person working with their own stamps.
In addition, the stamps are perforated by the postal authorities which suggests that if you try to intuit the original intent of the stamp issuing authority it is for these stamps to be separated along their perforations.
Login to Like
this post
Don,
I had hoped that they would have had gum from the beginning as it would have helped the argument, but they don't. It would not matter much any way because as you say it could not be proved either way. Even though it cannot be proved I do think they were scissor separated by a clerk. It might well even be that these stamps have stayed together all their lives having come from the same clerk and remained in the same collection. What ever the case I have stated that I consider them as space fillers simple because they are damaged and provenance
cannot be proven one way or the other. The 90 cent stamp could not have better margins so I cannot make any sense of a collector later on cutting them to get a better margined copy.
This might only make sense if they were imperf to begin with. I can't help but wonder why Scott would make the exception with Portugal and not the U.S. that you could expect seeing this. What ever may be I'm very happy with the purchase. I should have no trouble getting $10 for the 1 cent stamp and $60-70 for the 30 cent. The ninety is not going anywhere.
Login to Like
this post
Do any of them have any gum at all? If not, then additional questions come to mind. Perhaps they got stuck down in an album and were soaked/cut off?
Scott inconsistencies are pretty widespread, I always wrote this off to the catalogs being edited over decades of time by different people.
Your point about the two higher denominations is a good one. These were a lot of money, you would expect some care to be given to them over time.
Thanks for posting them, the one cent I can understand but the other two are indeed 'head scratching'.
Don
Login to Like
this post
Don, No, none of the stamps have a trace of gum. However, they are all spotlessly clean on their back sides. Very few collectors will ever have the 90 center in any kind of condition. For a space filler you could not get much better than this one.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
The other possibility is altered proofs.
Quite common.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Lars, No they are not proofs. I have the proofs and the paper is quite different which besides the perfs is the main factor in telling them apart. Paper used in proofs is very White stamp paper has a Greyish tinge to it. Even so why would someone only partially perf a proof and then cut off part of them. Ever since Eaby original proofs have become much scarcer from people perforating them and trying to pass them off as issued stamps. Scott was way behind in valueing proofs before this even happened. Proofs will generally sell for full cat while the stamps unless gems will only bring a percentage of cat. I'm glad I was able to get my complete set of proofs including officials and postage dues through 1887, 30 years ago, before this all came about.
Scan below shows proofs at left and stamps at right. Notice paper color.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Proofs of that series were printed on 3 different kinds of paper and it would not be difficult to dye the paper, if needed. Look at how sharp the image is on the so-called scissor cut stamps! That has proof written all over it!
"Even so why would someone only partially perf a proof and then cut off part of them"
They wouldn't. They would just barely nibble into the edge of the paper with a manual punch on two or three sides to make it look like it was trimmed. Because they are only cutting out a small notch, any imperfections in spacing will be disguised.
I say those are definitely altered proofs and therefore damaged stamps.
I have no problem using proofs as space fillers. I have two of them:
Lars
Login to Like
this post
" It is a very interesting stamp as up until it's issue the highest denomination of a U.S. stamp was only 12 cents. It seems the P.O. might have been premature of it's need of being used as there appears that not many were in fact used. This would explain the large gap of values between mint and used copies. "
That's not the reason used examples of 39 are scarce. 39 has an EKU of Sept 11, 1860 and the Civil War started April 12, 1861. Shortly thereafter all stamps previously issued were demonetized and replaced with a new issue rushed into production. (See the "August Issues" for an interesting side-story). The new issues included a 90c stamp, so it was needed, but there just weren't many used stamps saved in the short time 39 was valid for postage.
No U.S. stamp issued before 1861 is valid for postage.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Here's another comparison of proof vs stamp of my most favorite stamp.
The first two are proofs and the last two are issued stamps.
The first one is a nice example of an altered proof to resemble an issued stamp. I found it for $25 on Ebay and just had to have it for the price, compared to the $12,00 cat for the real stamp it's a dandy space filler. The second stamp is an unaltered proof in Rose Carmine. The third is an unused issued stamp also in Rose Carmine (my all time favorite and probably the best stamp in my collection). The fourth is a used issued stamp in the color Carmine as is also the first perfed proof. The first perfed proof had also been gummed with Yellowish gum which much changes the White color of the paper on the reverse.
Login to Like
this post
"The first one is a nice example of an altered proof to resemble an issued stamp. I found it for $25 on Ebay and just had to have it for the price, compared to the $12,00 cat for the real stamp it's a dandy space filler."
Your definition of space filler is different than mine. I consider a damaged stamp that is otherwise legitimate, or a proof that is properly labeled, to be space fillers. A fake stamp is a fraud that has no place in a collection, other than a section that specifically highlights such frauds.
And I still say your "scissor-cut" 38 and 39 are proof frauds.
JMHO.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Lars, I have no doubt, what so ever, that the #38 and 39 trimmed perf stamps are legitimate issued stamps!!! You've shown nothing at all to substantiate you irresponsible comments. Proof papers also differ from stamp paper in their weaves and methods of construction. Other than Card proofs and India paper proofs both of these were also printed on stamp paper. It could be possible that it was a proof on stamp paper but I doubt it. The stamp paper proof also catalogs at 1 1/2 times to that of a 39 stamp. These stamps are on stamp paper. I have the items in my possession and you do not and I have long been able to tell U.S. proofs from the issued stamps. Why do you not just say all the unused stamps in my collection are phoney proofs. Don't quit there the used ones must also be with fake cancels. Note the fully perfed #38 from my collection above next to the recently aquired item in question. They are both without gum and the reverse of the stamps is identical in tint. Must be that stamp is also a fake.
Any one else care to prove to me that these stamps are fakes or what Larsdog seems to think they are?
Below are the only two fakes I've ever seen that are obviously fake sitting next to the proof they look completely ridiculous especially the second one. Anyone else ever seen a good quality fake of these. Just showing these for fun as I've never shown them before
and they are kind of amusing, far more than how I feel about Lars' comments. None more are required!
8 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Wow!
Sensitive much?
"Lars, I have no doubt, what so ever, that the #38 and 39 trimmed perf stamps are legitimate issued stamps!!! You've shown nothing at all to substantiate you irresponsible comments."
So if you have NO DOUBT, send them to APEX for certification and I will reimburse you the certification fee if they are not fakes, frauds, or proofs. No risk to you other than postage, if you are correct. If you think my comments are "irresponsible", call me on it. I stand behind what I say 100%. How about you?
I noticed other obvious fakes in your collection and didn't call you on it, but if you want to go down this path, game on!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
Wow!
Tad
Login to Like
this post
Antonius, you are to be commended for remaining civil in the face of such caustic remarks.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"I noticed other obvious fakes in your collection"
Y'all harsh
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
He made it personal and accused me of "irresponsible comments."
Then he got sarcastic.
If he disagrees with my opinion that those are quite obvious fakes, so be it. I specialize in U.S. so this is an area I am familiar with. The rest of the world? Not so much. His collection is amazing and informative. I looked at his collection of Portuguese Colonies recently to get some help understand a particular issue I needed for a Topical collection. I'm glad he has his collection posted online as a reference. I find it useful. Be he also has more than one fake in his collection not labeled as such. I'm sure I would have more if I attempted to collect the world and didn't get certificates on the highly faked issues.
And I have no problem with him inadvertently having fakes in his collection. Despite my best efforts I may have a fake in my U.S. collection and I'm confident that there is at least ONE fake in my ONE FROM EVERY COUNTRY collection. The difference is, I'd like to know about it.
Login to Like
this post
Hungary, Thanks, it really isn't all that easy. I try to contribute something new every day to this board. However I have to rethink that if I am going to come under this type of thing in the future.
Lars, There is a tone in many of your comments that I find offensive. It would seem I am not the only one who sees this. I think we are partly having a difference in definitions. A fake = proof or counterfeit to me. Perhaps that is not your definition? What ever is the case these are most definitely not forgeries made by someone other than the government. Taking note of the clarity of the prints. It would be logical for the first of the issued 30 and 90 cent stamps to still have as clear an image as the proofs. Also the early printings of these would be the ones most likely to be scissor cut as clerks had not yet got use to separating them by the perforations. In addition these were not high run issues like the 1,3,5,10 and even 12 cent issues, so there is no reason to expect to see much wear on the printing plates through the whole run. Even so the two imperf proofs appear a bit sharper to me.
Sure, no doubt, I have fakes that I don't know about in my collection of around 400,000 stamps, how could I not. There also a few I do know about and they are usually marked with an "X", "F" or "C", on occasion I may have forgot to do this. If I am not sure I don't mark it. I've always encouraged people to point out any fakes they see in my collection and make proper adjustments. I also always try my best to put stamps in their correct positions and never put a watermarked stamp in a higher priced watermarked stamps position. As I have often times said, I do not care for most overprinted stamps because overprints are easily forged. I especially don't care for the ones from obscure entities that I don't care much about. These would probably constitute most of the forgeries my collection contains.
Also to my knowledge there are only two proofs mounted with stamps in my whole collection. One is a card proof of U.S. #4, it was put there to show the difference between #2 and 4. The other is Argentina #175 which is also a card proof.
There are also a couple of specimens in the collection but these are easy to spot as specimen is written across them.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"Lars, There is a tone in many of your comments that I find offensive."
I apologize if you find my TONE offensive, but if you find my MESSAGE offensive, perhaps that's because we disagree on what is legitimate to place in an album. That doesn't mean one of us is right and the other is wrong. It just means we respectfully disagree.
"I think we are partly having a difference in definitions. A fake = proof or counterfeit to me."
A fake COULD be a proof or a counterfeit. The point is whether it is deceptive. There is nothing wrong with placing a proof in your collection as a place-holder as long as it's designated as a proof. I would not place an altered proof or counterfeit in my collection (other than the frauds/fakes/and facsimiles section). But that's me. Do what you want. Just be honest about it.
"Perhaps that is not your definition? What ever is the case these are most definitely not forgeries made by someone other than the government."
There is no difference in definitions and I NEVER even hinted that those were forgeries made by "someone other than the government". That is just you deflecting from the reality that I called you out on proofs that were altered and you won't admit it. Full stop. End of story. And the more you deny this, the less respect I have for you.
Your rationalization that early stamps would be more likely to be "scissor cut" is just as flawed as your statement about the 90 cent stamp:
"It seems the P.O. might have been premature of it's need of being used as there appears that not many were in fact used. This would explain the large gap of values between mint and used copies. "
That is just totally made-up (Mod - profanity removed). The reason 39 is rare used is because it was issued September 1860 and the Civil War started April 1961. Stamps issued prior to 1861 were demonetized and new designs were rushed into production, INCLUDING a 90c stamp, in 1861. I didn't call you on that before, but now that you have called my integrity into question I will call B.S. when I see it.
I can only hope that you stop deluding yourself because I really find your collection useful when researching topicals, but sadly, I have little hope. I have encountered this mind-set before and there is no compromise. Too bad.
Lars
(Modified by Moderator on 2017-08-18 02:10:51)
Login to Like
this post
Its possible they are altered proofs but its also possible they were scissor cut by anyone that had them in their possession (less likely the older they get). Antonius has them in hand, and has been berated enough about the possibility. If he wants to certify them he can, but why bother for the condition they are in?
I find the remarks about what we are allowed to put in our collections just bizarre.
By the way, the person that supposedly fake the perfs on the 30 cent certainly did a better job than anyone I have ever seen. Perhaps they are just extremely accurate nips put in, but they sure line up with the genuine perfs, almost exactly.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"I find the remarks about what we are allowed to put in our collections just bizarre."
You're "allowed" to put anything in your collection that you want. It's your collection. I only recall talking about what I would put in MY collection and said explicitly "That's just me. Do what you want." If I came across as trying to tell anyone else what they can or can't do, then I used a poor choice of words as that was not my intent.
"By the way, the person that supposedly fake the perfs on the 30 cent certainly did a better job than anyone I have ever seen. Perhaps they are just extremely accurate nips put in, but they sure line up with the genuine perfs, almost exactly."
I agree! And that threw me off at first. It really is some impressive work!
"its also possible they were scissor cut by anyone that had them in their possession"
Of course that's POSSIBLE. Even certificates of authenticity aren't perfect, so there is a remote (in my opinion - and my opinion only) chance that these are legitimate scissor separated issues (by the postal clerk) or trimmed by some subsequent owner for some unknown reason.
"Antonius has them in hand, and has been berated enough about the possibility."
Agreed. I have no more to add, but it isn't just a possibility. It's a very high probability (in my opinion, of course, but just ask any other U.S. specialist).
Lars
Login to Like
this post
I think its a low probability that all, if any, of those three are proofs. Either very poor impressions for proofs or very poor images. So its not a high probability at all IMO; likewise not a high probability that any reperf job is that good.
Login to Like
this post
Then you also have to wonder why anyone would take a proof, worth $50 at least or more if not india paper, and then create a damaged fake, a space-filler at best, worth 5-10% catalog if generous. Factor in the effort involved and its highly unlikely anyone would bother. More likely, some very young or inexperienced collector in the 19th century, trimmed a poorly centered or damaged stamp, as so many such folks were want to do, to center the vignette.
Login to Like
this post
"I think its a low probability that all, if any, of those three are proofs. Either very poor impressions for proofs or very poor images. So its not a high probability at all IMO; likewise not a high probability that any reperf job is that good."
The impressions are very sharp. Of course they won't look as sharp as an unaltered proof on white paper, but if you look at the fine details it's obvious the 30c and 90c are sharp images. I was only referring to the 30c and 90c since those were the proof examples given. I specifically said #38 and #39. I think it's obvious and you disagree. No worries.
As far as the reperf job, I've seen reperf jobs on 19th Century U.S. as good or better. The reperf on the 90c Lincoln is fairly impressive, so there is nothing extraordinary about the perforations that would be a factor one way or the other.
"Then you also have to wonder why anyone would take a proof, worth $50 at least or more if not india paper, and then create a damaged fake, a space-filler at best, worth 5-10% catalog if generous. Factor in the effort involved and its highly unlikely anyone would bother."
That's a really good point! Why WOULD anyone alter a proof of those issues with such a lousy return on investment? The answer is, they wouldn't - in today's market. But there is no telling when these stamps were altered, whether scissor cut by a postal clerk, reperforated, or trimmed perfs. 90 years ago, according to the 5th Edition of the Scott Specialized, the proofs were $2.50 from reprint plates, mint perforated were $20 and $40, and imperforates were still listed at $400 and $800, but a note indicated that those stamps were probably not regularly issued imperf and were de-listed soon after that. So it does seem that any alteration wasn't recent.
"More likely, some very young or inexperienced collector in the 19th century, trimmed a poorly centered or damaged stamp, as so many such folks were want to do, to center the vignette."
That is actually very unlikely, at least if the goal was to center the vignette, because the result in the case of the 30c stamp was the opposite, but you can't rule out some collector that thought it looked "cleaner" to have neatly trimmed perfs!
You are of the opinion that the 30c and 90c are perforated stamps that had the perfs trimmed at some point, either by a postal clerk or a previous owner. I believe they are altered proofs, so we will just have to leave it at that, but it is interesting to wonder WHY in either case since it doesn't make a lot of sense in either case!
Login to Like
this post
You all doth protest too much, methinks
Do whatever suits your collection preferences.
As for proof, they very, VERY rarely match the actual production stamps especially the paper used - why should they?
Classical fakes, counterfeits are a legitimate part of postal history. modern photocopies and faked overprints aside.
I have ~30M forgeries and many like those of Spain command some good prices.
I will gladly accept any that you have and 95%+ of you have them like it or not.
BTW someone with the right equipment could easily tell if those cut stamps are recent or old from the end fibers.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"95%+ of you have them like it or not."
Sad, but true.
Login to Like
this post
Before the advent of perforations all stamps were separated from the sheets by the use of scissors. Some clerks being use to using scissors continued this practice for awhile after the first perforated stamps were issued.
Scott makes note of this for some countries like Portugal. For the first perforated issue of Portugal in 1867 Scott makes this statement: Nos.25-33 frequently were separated by scissors. Slightly blunted perfs on one or two sides are to be expected for stamps of this issue. I have also seen this done on some of the U.S. 1867 issues as well. Since this was done by official agents of the Post Office it could be argued that this might not be considered as damage. Today I received 3 stamps that unquestionably were separated in this way. I already had an unused copy of the one and thirty cent stamps but the 90 cent stamp has eluded me all these years. Although it is a flawless printing I still have to regard it as a space filler. It is a very interesting stamp as up until it's issue the highest denomination of a U.S. stamp was only 12 cents. It seems the P.O. might have been premature of it's need of being used as there appears that not many were in fact used. This would explain the large gap of values between mint and used copies. The stamp mint is a mere $3,000 while used examples catalog at $11,000. Even though I must consider it a space filler, I'm a very happy camper in filling that space. The auction gavel threw down at $55.00 for the three.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
06:33:19am
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Interesting information....This will have me examining my early US stamps more closely
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Hi Antonius,
Do these have full, original gum?
The stamp would first have to be certified as having original gum. If they did, it could then be argued that it is likely to have been done in a PO but I see no way that it could ever be proven when it had actually been cut.
For example, a few years after they were issued a collector might have had a multiple. Given the very close margins, they used scissors to fetch the widest margin stamp he could and these were the 'left-overs'. And as strange as it sounds, early on there were collectors who 'cut to shape' (just like postal stationery).
Do you have some other evidence that can definitively prove they were cut in a Post Office like this?
Don
Edit: After thinking about this a bit more... I am not sure that the hobby or marketplace would ever consider these anything other than space fillers. They are damaged stamps, does it really matter when the damage occurred? Suppose a PO clerk threw a block of stamps in the bottom of the drawer, the stamps got scuffed, torn, creased and/or soiled.
Does this mean that today we consider them as anything other than damaged stamps?
Login to Like
this post
01:21:33pm
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
"I am not sure that the hobby or marketplace would ever consider these anything other than space fillers."
I agree with that.
However, there are instances when stamps have been damaged by postal authorities, and the damage is not considered to be detrimental to the value of the stamp. Two examples quickly come to mind:
Afghanistan - Early stamps of Afghanistan up until 1891 were canceled by a postal clerk tearing off a piece of the stamp.
Bangladesh - In 2007, Bangladesh printed for issue a miniature sheet of six stamps for Bangladesh Flood Relief. The upper left stamp in the sheet contained a picture of the Prime Minister. He ordered the stamp removed from the sheet as he did not give permission for his image to be used. The sheet was issued as a sheet of five. The removal of the stamp was done by various means. scissors were used, the sheet was torn. or a combination of means to remove the stamp from the sheet. The sheet is not considered damaged with the missing stamp, unless another area of the sheet has a problem.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
I think Don is making the case that it is impossible to tell the difference between a stamp scissors cut by postal authorities and those scissors cut by a company employee handling stamps on behalf of their employer or a individual person working with their own stamps.
In addition, the stamps are perforated by the postal authorities which suggests that if you try to intuit the original intent of the stamp issuing authority it is for these stamps to be separated along their perforations.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Don,
I had hoped that they would have had gum from the beginning as it would have helped the argument, but they don't. It would not matter much any way because as you say it could not be proved either way. Even though it cannot be proved I do think they were scissor separated by a clerk. It might well even be that these stamps have stayed together all their lives having come from the same clerk and remained in the same collection. What ever the case I have stated that I consider them as space fillers simple because they are damaged and provenance
cannot be proven one way or the other. The 90 cent stamp could not have better margins so I cannot make any sense of a collector later on cutting them to get a better margined copy.
This might only make sense if they were imperf to begin with. I can't help but wonder why Scott would make the exception with Portugal and not the U.S. that you could expect seeing this. What ever may be I'm very happy with the purchase. I should have no trouble getting $10 for the 1 cent stamp and $60-70 for the 30 cent. The ninety is not going anywhere.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Do any of them have any gum at all? If not, then additional questions come to mind. Perhaps they got stuck down in an album and were soaked/cut off?
Scott inconsistencies are pretty widespread, I always wrote this off to the catalogs being edited over decades of time by different people.
Your point about the two higher denominations is a good one. These were a lot of money, you would expect some care to be given to them over time.
Thanks for posting them, the one cent I can understand but the other two are indeed 'head scratching'.
Don
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Don, No, none of the stamps have a trace of gum. However, they are all spotlessly clean on their back sides. Very few collectors will ever have the 90 center in any kind of condition. For a space filler you could not get much better than this one.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
The other possibility is altered proofs.
Quite common.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Lars, No they are not proofs. I have the proofs and the paper is quite different which besides the perfs is the main factor in telling them apart. Paper used in proofs is very White stamp paper has a Greyish tinge to it. Even so why would someone only partially perf a proof and then cut off part of them. Ever since Eaby original proofs have become much scarcer from people perforating them and trying to pass them off as issued stamps. Scott was way behind in valueing proofs before this even happened. Proofs will generally sell for full cat while the stamps unless gems will only bring a percentage of cat. I'm glad I was able to get my complete set of proofs including officials and postage dues through 1887, 30 years ago, before this all came about.
Scan below shows proofs at left and stamps at right. Notice paper color.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Proofs of that series were printed on 3 different kinds of paper and it would not be difficult to dye the paper, if needed. Look at how sharp the image is on the so-called scissor cut stamps! That has proof written all over it!
"Even so why would someone only partially perf a proof and then cut off part of them"
They wouldn't. They would just barely nibble into the edge of the paper with a manual punch on two or three sides to make it look like it was trimmed. Because they are only cutting out a small notch, any imperfections in spacing will be disguised.
I say those are definitely altered proofs and therefore damaged stamps.
I have no problem using proofs as space fillers. I have two of them:
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
" It is a very interesting stamp as up until it's issue the highest denomination of a U.S. stamp was only 12 cents. It seems the P.O. might have been premature of it's need of being used as there appears that not many were in fact used. This would explain the large gap of values between mint and used copies. "
That's not the reason used examples of 39 are scarce. 39 has an EKU of Sept 11, 1860 and the Civil War started April 12, 1861. Shortly thereafter all stamps previously issued were demonetized and replaced with a new issue rushed into production. (See the "August Issues" for an interesting side-story). The new issues included a 90c stamp, so it was needed, but there just weren't many used stamps saved in the short time 39 was valid for postage.
No U.S. stamp issued before 1861 is valid for postage.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Here's another comparison of proof vs stamp of my most favorite stamp.
The first two are proofs and the last two are issued stamps.
The first one is a nice example of an altered proof to resemble an issued stamp. I found it for $25 on Ebay and just had to have it for the price, compared to the $12,00 cat for the real stamp it's a dandy space filler. The second stamp is an unaltered proof in Rose Carmine. The third is an unused issued stamp also in Rose Carmine (my all time favorite and probably the best stamp in my collection). The fourth is a used issued stamp in the color Carmine as is also the first perfed proof. The first perfed proof had also been gummed with Yellowish gum which much changes the White color of the paper on the reverse.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
"The first one is a nice example of an altered proof to resemble an issued stamp. I found it for $25 on Ebay and just had to have it for the price, compared to the $12,00 cat for the real stamp it's a dandy space filler."
Your definition of space filler is different than mine. I consider a damaged stamp that is otherwise legitimate, or a proof that is properly labeled, to be space fillers. A fake stamp is a fraud that has no place in a collection, other than a section that specifically highlights such frauds.
And I still say your "scissor-cut" 38 and 39 are proof frauds.
JMHO.
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Lars, I have no doubt, what so ever, that the #38 and 39 trimmed perf stamps are legitimate issued stamps!!! You've shown nothing at all to substantiate you irresponsible comments. Proof papers also differ from stamp paper in their weaves and methods of construction. Other than Card proofs and India paper proofs both of these were also printed on stamp paper. It could be possible that it was a proof on stamp paper but I doubt it. The stamp paper proof also catalogs at 1 1/2 times to that of a 39 stamp. These stamps are on stamp paper. I have the items in my possession and you do not and I have long been able to tell U.S. proofs from the issued stamps. Why do you not just say all the unused stamps in my collection are phoney proofs. Don't quit there the used ones must also be with fake cancels. Note the fully perfed #38 from my collection above next to the recently aquired item in question. They are both without gum and the reverse of the stamps is identical in tint. Must be that stamp is also a fake.
Any one else care to prove to me that these stamps are fakes or what Larsdog seems to think they are?
Below are the only two fakes I've ever seen that are obviously fake sitting next to the proof they look completely ridiculous especially the second one. Anyone else ever seen a good quality fake of these. Just showing these for fun as I've never shown them before
and they are kind of amusing, far more than how I feel about Lars' comments. None more are required!
8 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Wow!
Sensitive much?
"Lars, I have no doubt, what so ever, that the #38 and 39 trimmed perf stamps are legitimate issued stamps!!! You've shown nothing at all to substantiate you irresponsible comments."
So if you have NO DOUBT, send them to APEX for certification and I will reimburse you the certification fee if they are not fakes, frauds, or proofs. No risk to you other than postage, if you are correct. If you think my comments are "irresponsible", call me on it. I stand behind what I say 100%. How about you?
I noticed other obvious fakes in your collection and didn't call you on it, but if you want to go down this path, game on!
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Wow!
Tad
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Antonius, you are to be commended for remaining civil in the face of such caustic remarks.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
06:54:45pm
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
"I noticed other obvious fakes in your collection"
Y'all harsh
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
He made it personal and accused me of "irresponsible comments."
Then he got sarcastic.
If he disagrees with my opinion that those are quite obvious fakes, so be it. I specialize in U.S. so this is an area I am familiar with. The rest of the world? Not so much. His collection is amazing and informative. I looked at his collection of Portuguese Colonies recently to get some help understand a particular issue I needed for a Topical collection. I'm glad he has his collection posted online as a reference. I find it useful. Be he also has more than one fake in his collection not labeled as such. I'm sure I would have more if I attempted to collect the world and didn't get certificates on the highly faked issues.
And I have no problem with him inadvertently having fakes in his collection. Despite my best efforts I may have a fake in my U.S. collection and I'm confident that there is at least ONE fake in my ONE FROM EVERY COUNTRY collection. The difference is, I'd like to know about it.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Hungary, Thanks, it really isn't all that easy. I try to contribute something new every day to this board. However I have to rethink that if I am going to come under this type of thing in the future.
Lars, There is a tone in many of your comments that I find offensive. It would seem I am not the only one who sees this. I think we are partly having a difference in definitions. A fake = proof or counterfeit to me. Perhaps that is not your definition? What ever is the case these are most definitely not forgeries made by someone other than the government. Taking note of the clarity of the prints. It would be logical for the first of the issued 30 and 90 cent stamps to still have as clear an image as the proofs. Also the early printings of these would be the ones most likely to be scissor cut as clerks had not yet got use to separating them by the perforations. In addition these were not high run issues like the 1,3,5,10 and even 12 cent issues, so there is no reason to expect to see much wear on the printing plates through the whole run. Even so the two imperf proofs appear a bit sharper to me.
Sure, no doubt, I have fakes that I don't know about in my collection of around 400,000 stamps, how could I not. There also a few I do know about and they are usually marked with an "X", "F" or "C", on occasion I may have forgot to do this. If I am not sure I don't mark it. I've always encouraged people to point out any fakes they see in my collection and make proper adjustments. I also always try my best to put stamps in their correct positions and never put a watermarked stamp in a higher priced watermarked stamps position. As I have often times said, I do not care for most overprinted stamps because overprints are easily forged. I especially don't care for the ones from obscure entities that I don't care much about. These would probably constitute most of the forgeries my collection contains.
Also to my knowledge there are only two proofs mounted with stamps in my whole collection. One is a card proof of U.S. #4, it was put there to show the difference between #2 and 4. The other is Argentina #175 which is also a card proof.
There are also a couple of specimens in the collection but these are easy to spot as specimen is written across them.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
"Lars, There is a tone in many of your comments that I find offensive."
I apologize if you find my TONE offensive, but if you find my MESSAGE offensive, perhaps that's because we disagree on what is legitimate to place in an album. That doesn't mean one of us is right and the other is wrong. It just means we respectfully disagree.
"I think we are partly having a difference in definitions. A fake = proof or counterfeit to me."
A fake COULD be a proof or a counterfeit. The point is whether it is deceptive. There is nothing wrong with placing a proof in your collection as a place-holder as long as it's designated as a proof. I would not place an altered proof or counterfeit in my collection (other than the frauds/fakes/and facsimiles section). But that's me. Do what you want. Just be honest about it.
"Perhaps that is not your definition? What ever is the case these are most definitely not forgeries made by someone other than the government."
There is no difference in definitions and I NEVER even hinted that those were forgeries made by "someone other than the government". That is just you deflecting from the reality that I called you out on proofs that were altered and you won't admit it. Full stop. End of story. And the more you deny this, the less respect I have for you.
Your rationalization that early stamps would be more likely to be "scissor cut" is just as flawed as your statement about the 90 cent stamp:
"It seems the P.O. might have been premature of it's need of being used as there appears that not many were in fact used. This would explain the large gap of values between mint and used copies. "
That is just totally made-up (Mod - profanity removed). The reason 39 is rare used is because it was issued September 1860 and the Civil War started April 1961. Stamps issued prior to 1861 were demonetized and new designs were rushed into production, INCLUDING a 90c stamp, in 1861. I didn't call you on that before, but now that you have called my integrity into question I will call B.S. when I see it.
I can only hope that you stop deluding yourself because I really find your collection useful when researching topicals, but sadly, I have little hope. I have encountered this mind-set before and there is no compromise. Too bad.
Lars
(Modified by Moderator on 2017-08-18 02:10:51)
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Its possible they are altered proofs but its also possible they were scissor cut by anyone that had them in their possession (less likely the older they get). Antonius has them in hand, and has been berated enough about the possibility. If he wants to certify them he can, but why bother for the condition they are in?
I find the remarks about what we are allowed to put in our collections just bizarre.
By the way, the person that supposedly fake the perfs on the 30 cent certainly did a better job than anyone I have ever seen. Perhaps they are just extremely accurate nips put in, but they sure line up with the genuine perfs, almost exactly.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
"I find the remarks about what we are allowed to put in our collections just bizarre."
You're "allowed" to put anything in your collection that you want. It's your collection. I only recall talking about what I would put in MY collection and said explicitly "That's just me. Do what you want." If I came across as trying to tell anyone else what they can or can't do, then I used a poor choice of words as that was not my intent.
"By the way, the person that supposedly fake the perfs on the 30 cent certainly did a better job than anyone I have ever seen. Perhaps they are just extremely accurate nips put in, but they sure line up with the genuine perfs, almost exactly."
I agree! And that threw me off at first. It really is some impressive work!
"its also possible they were scissor cut by anyone that had them in their possession"
Of course that's POSSIBLE. Even certificates of authenticity aren't perfect, so there is a remote (in my opinion - and my opinion only) chance that these are legitimate scissor separated issues (by the postal clerk) or trimmed by some subsequent owner for some unknown reason.
"Antonius has them in hand, and has been berated enough about the possibility."
Agreed. I have no more to add, but it isn't just a possibility. It's a very high probability (in my opinion, of course, but just ask any other U.S. specialist).
Lars
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
I think its a low probability that all, if any, of those three are proofs. Either very poor impressions for proofs or very poor images. So its not a high probability at all IMO; likewise not a high probability that any reperf job is that good.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
Then you also have to wonder why anyone would take a proof, worth $50 at least or more if not india paper, and then create a damaged fake, a space-filler at best, worth 5-10% catalog if generous. Factor in the effort involved and its highly unlikely anyone would bother. More likely, some very young or inexperienced collector in the 19th century, trimmed a poorly centered or damaged stamp, as so many such folks were want to do, to center the vignette.
Login to Like
this post
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
"I think its a low probability that all, if any, of those three are proofs. Either very poor impressions for proofs or very poor images. So its not a high probability at all IMO; likewise not a high probability that any reperf job is that good."
The impressions are very sharp. Of course they won't look as sharp as an unaltered proof on white paper, but if you look at the fine details it's obvious the 30c and 90c are sharp images. I was only referring to the 30c and 90c since those were the proof examples given. I specifically said #38 and #39. I think it's obvious and you disagree. No worries.
As far as the reperf job, I've seen reperf jobs on 19th Century U.S. as good or better. The reperf on the 90c Lincoln is fairly impressive, so there is nothing extraordinary about the perforations that would be a factor one way or the other.
"Then you also have to wonder why anyone would take a proof, worth $50 at least or more if not india paper, and then create a damaged fake, a space-filler at best, worth 5-10% catalog if generous. Factor in the effort involved and its highly unlikely anyone would bother."
That's a really good point! Why WOULD anyone alter a proof of those issues with such a lousy return on investment? The answer is, they wouldn't - in today's market. But there is no telling when these stamps were altered, whether scissor cut by a postal clerk, reperforated, or trimmed perfs. 90 years ago, according to the 5th Edition of the Scott Specialized, the proofs were $2.50 from reprint plates, mint perforated were $20 and $40, and imperforates were still listed at $400 and $800, but a note indicated that those stamps were probably not regularly issued imperf and were de-listed soon after that. So it does seem that any alteration wasn't recent.
"More likely, some very young or inexperienced collector in the 19th century, trimmed a poorly centered or damaged stamp, as so many such folks were want to do, to center the vignette."
That is actually very unlikely, at least if the goal was to center the vignette, because the result in the case of the 30c stamp was the opposite, but you can't rule out some collector that thought it looked "cleaner" to have neatly trimmed perfs!
You are of the opinion that the 30c and 90c are perforated stamps that had the perfs trimmed at some point, either by a postal clerk or a previous owner. I believe they are altered proofs, so we will just have to leave it at that, but it is interesting to wonder WHY in either case since it doesn't make a lot of sense in either case!
Login to Like
this post
10:09:19am
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
You all doth protest too much, methinks
Do whatever suits your collection preferences.
As for proof, they very, VERY rarely match the actual production stamps especially the paper used - why should they?
Classical fakes, counterfeits are a legitimate part of postal history. modern photocopies and faked overprints aside.
I have ~30M forgeries and many like those of Spain command some good prices.
I will gladly accept any that you have and 95%+ of you have them like it or not.
BTW someone with the right equipment could easily tell if those cut stamps are recent or old from the end fibers.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Scissor separated first perforated issues
"95%+ of you have them like it or not."
Sad, but true.
Login to Like
this post