Amazing! Made it to 100 views without a single comment. Must be some kind of record. All this vast philatelic brain trust here and not a venture to explain. Guess I was hoping for some yea or nay as to the possibility of an imperf on top (previously unlisted for 501 or 502), before spending dough to send it off for evaluation. Maybe someone's recovered from a valentine candy overdose and will yet save me the trouble ...... or not.
George, I believe there's some mix up. As a dealer I have not gotten around to listing China (or Indochina) material yet so I have no answer for you. Darn, I thought someone was finally responding to my issue. Oh well.
The past week, it's been the frozen tundra down here in Texas. I haven't been in snow like this since I left New York. I actually had to shovel snow three times this week!
Anyway, looking at your stamp in question...
Disregarding the perforations, have you verified the printing type: rotary press, flat plate, or offset?
To me the stamp is suspect, because the perforations are not true to the design. You can see that the perfs, particularly along the bottom, are not parallel to the frame line of the stamp. It could be printer's waste, or it could be an imperf corner stamp where someone was trying to perforate it to make it appear to be a coil stamp, or it could have blind perfs. Will not be able to tell if it has blind perfs off an image.
I only know enough to get myself in trouble, but I like the printer's waste suggestion. Given the width of the margins, shouldn't there be a plate number in the corner?
Using Scotts specialized as a reference, the stamp measures perf 11, is flat plate, and type II (no impressions in the paper suggesting blind perfs) Unless the perfs have been added (from an 484), this appears to be 502. Concerning the perfs, they look authentic, to me anyway. The left selvage is without gum, the upper selvage is gummed. The 502 also came in a booklet pane of six. Note that the perfs extend through the margins. I'm not very knowledgable in this area and am of a mindset that in almost all such cases, it's the more common stamp- but I am curious as I haven't run across something similar. What distinguishes printer's waste from a legitimate error?
I would endorse Michael's analysis. I would see this as printers waste (a reject) which was recognized and pulled from the press and somehow did not get destroyed. An "error" usually is of a nature that escaped the printers overview, escapes into circulation and is discovered by the public. There are obvious exceptions , but that is how I view it.
BTW Ron, don't feel too slighted ( except by Tyszka ). It's been a tough few weeks here in California battling to get the schools to open, dealing with all the factions and trying not to lose what little hair I have left! I stared at that original posting a bit thinking WTH? The offset, bizarre nature of the perfs that existed made me think the pressman was not watching, but who knows. A fake? As I've experienced, they seem to have been pretty clever during the Depression in terms of trying to make gold out of mud.
Thanks guys. Any input is helpful via different perspectives. I enjoyed Ted's comment-how true. Guess I'll bite the bullet at some point and send it in, Perhaps if I show a return address with a "prominent" name as Ted suggested. Eventually I will follow up with the results here. Or better yet, if you see its photo in Linns, you'll know.
Ron ~ I took the liberty of 'borrowing' your image and parts of your description and pit it out on another message board where many 'Jedi Knights' of philately hang out, including a W-F specialist. I'll check in a while to see if I got any responses and will bring them over here if I did.
1) From: Steven Frumkin (he-s a W-F specialist) - "Message: Should not be printers waste. If you have an unquestionably genuine-in-all-respects Engraved W/F Perf 11, try to do a perf to perf match-up, paying particular attention to gauge and hole size. That should help determine if it's an imperf with fake perfs added."
2) (You'll like this one) from Gerald Nylander - "The top perf wheel came loose and wandered upward causing the large top margin that is imperforate. I've seen other pieces like this. There's a similar looking piece on Scott 530 in the upcoming Kelleher sale on errors next week. I see more of these on the offset issues than the engraved issues."
Great job, George. Thanks so much. I've done as suggested and found the perfs and holes from this 526 to line up favorably with the apparent 502. Well, it's encouraging that just maybe ...... at least a possibility now.
"Engraved issues also. George Brett once showed that a dangerous fake of Scott 482A (imperforate 2¢ Washington Type Ia with Schermack Type III perforations) had been made by trimming a Scott 500 (perforated Type Ia) stamp with an imperforate top margin.
I have no provenance for the item. Picked it up off eBay about 10 years ago for something like $2.00. There was no claim of anything special, more an oddity so I took the chance.
Comments
uswv-3
Anyway, looking at your stamp in question...
Disregarding the perforations, have you verified the printing type: rotary press, flat plate, or offset?
To me the stamp is suspect, because the perforations are not true to the design. You can see that the perfs, particularly along the bottom, are not parallel to the frame line of the stamp. It could be printer's waste, or it could be an imperf corner stamp where someone was trying to perforate it to make it appear to be a coil stamp, or it could have blind perfs. Will not be able to tell if it has blind perfs off an image.
If a prominent collector or dealer owns it, it's an error; if you own it, it's printer's waste.
I'll check in a while to see if I got any responses and will bring them over here if I did.
1) From: Steven Frumkin (he-s a W-F specialist) -
"Message: Should not be printers waste.
If you have an unquestionably genuine-in-all-respects Engraved W/F Perf 11, try to do a perf to perf match-up, paying particular attention to gauge and hole size.
That should help determine if it's an imperf with fake perfs added."
2) (You'll like this one) from Gerald Nylander -
"The top perf wheel came loose and wandered upward causing the large top margin that is imperforate. I've seen other pieces like this. There's a similar looking piece on Scott 530 in the upcoming Kelleher sale on errors next week. I see more of these on the offset issues than the engraved issues."
XXXOOO
Great job, George. Thanks so much. I've done as suggested and found the perfs and holes from this 526 to line up favorably with the apparent 502. Well, it's encouraging that just maybe ...... at least a possibility now.
"Engraved issues also. George Brett once showed that a dangerous fake of Scott 482A (imperforate 2¢ Washington Type Ia with Schermack Type III perforations) had been made by trimming a Scott 500 (perforated Type Ia) stamp with an imperforate top margin.