Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Here are two examples from an auction house, in both cases not even close.
Do SOR members have misidentified to show us?
Special note: The cover is dated 1921, 579 was not issued until 1923!
Another 2 examples where so simple but not identified correctly!
1898
Login to Like
this post
1898
With all of these misidentified finds that you are pointing out to us...are you contacting the listing person to let them know they have the identification incorrect and why it is wrong and what the correct number should be?
Or are you just pointing them out to us for some reason?
Login to Like
this post
@purrfin2
I'm not telling the seller they have misidentified their stamp(s).
1898
Login to Like
this post
So you look for faults and do not correct them, or attempt to correct them by notifying the seller a mistake has happened.
I come to the discussion boards to learn about stamps from others that have more knowledge than I. When I see someone like yourself that will point out others mistakes and not HELP them to learn and correct then like My Cousin Vinnie says, I'm done witch you!
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:50:15am
"So you look for faults and do not correct them, or attempt to correct them"
nor share your knowledge of how or why they are misidentified so that members here might be better educated. That would be a useful and valuable addition to the DB. Instead, you play these silly guessing games which amount to "I know things you don't ... ha ha".
Roy
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@purrfin2 &roy
I passing on to the SOR members education about misidentified stamps, what SOR members do with this info. is up to them.
I would think that right and proper identification mistakes (if that is what they are) would be of interest, perhaps SOR members are not concerned about this?
1898
Login to Like
this post
But where in this post is the correction? You have pointed out they are wrong, but where is the answer? You are keeping information which may be valuable to someone all to yourself. Why are you not sharing the answer?
Have you contacted the seller? What do you want us to do about this situation?
Oh, excuse me this is for @1898
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:03:16am
"I passing on to the SOR members education about misidentified stamps"
There is no "education" involved if you do not explain why the identifications are wrong.
Roy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@Roy
The education is pointing out the mistakes. What SOR does with this right and proper info. is up to them!
By the way from an image on the computer monitor has does one determine what the gauge is for the perfs? How does one determine if there is a watermark? I have no idea, please educate me how to do this, maybe by magic?
1898
Login to Like
this post
"The education is pointing out the mistakes."
@1898
I totally disagree. That is not educating. That is demeaning and condescending. Where in the world is pointing out someone's mistake education? Why not just say they are stupid and be done with it? This is a form of bullying and should not be tolerated here on SOR or anywhere on the internet.
8 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Let's just agree to disagree?
Oh I forgot @purrfin2
1898
Login to Like
this post
Now and then I go to ebay searching for an elusive stamp, sometimes I found out that there are stamps that are misidentified so I contact the seller to let them know and correct the mistake, I do get a thanks for my observation and the listing is changed, other times I'm completely ignored.
While I agree that it would be next to impossible to determined the perforations on an computer image of a stamp not so with the watermark, all it takes is a water tray and a bit of water or whatever fluid you fancy to reveal the watermark, take a picture and post it, size doesn't matter in this case.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Actually I think not telling what the alleged (to be fair to ebay seller) misidentification is but seeing if anyone else could spot the error too. There may be more than one.
Now if I see an error I may report to the seller if I consider it an honest mistake but sometimes I do not since I suspect their response would not be positive.
Login to Like
this post
@Everyone
Learn by my mistake informing the seller of the mistake of identification. I've done this maybe 3 times, but never again!
There was one dealer who had lots of material I was looking for, I found an error, told him about it and he blocked me from ever bidding on his material!
1898
Login to Like
this post
How about this suggestion for making the posts more informative: instead of using the same title “Misidentified”, why not include the correct Scott catalog number in the title so at least the information, for what it’s worth, is easily searchable? So something like “Misidentified Scott #nnn”. That would go a long way to making these posts useful for members.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@HungaryForStamps
Good suggestion, makes more sense than what I'm doing, again thank you.
I'm not sure I even going to do this anymore, mostly what I got was negative.
I thought I was passing on good information.
1898
Login to Like
this post
I contacted the seller regarding the first example of a mis-identified #579 and they ended the listing.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Hope you will not be blocked from bidding from this seller, you never know it happened to me and the seller is a large dealer on Ebay!
Login to Like
this post
Blocking on ebay is out of control with a few large ebay sellers. (thinking about one in particular in Belgium)
Check their negative reviews. If I ever want to check anyone's review, I am only interested in neutral or negatives. Positive reviews tell you very little.
For sellers feeling the need to block anyone who dares asking a question, or offering a suggestion, it is their loss as far as I am concerned. I got blocked for asking about a delayed (lost eventually it turned out) mail...seller refusing any communications afterward.
I wish there was a way for ebay to act upon total "lunatics" (and I have met a few)! or automatically terminate blocking of accounts after a certain time.
rrr.....
Login to Like
this post
What I find interesting in my case I in the past bought a lot of revenue cancels from this dealer, who is a major dealer, so the dealer lost my business and my dollars.
I will never again let dealers know of an error they made!
If other SOR members want to do this go ahead, just be warned!
Login to Like
this post
Here are four stamps not even close to R217-R220. Not inscribed!
I will not be informing the seller!
I can't tell what the right and proper identification is!
This is education!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:46:27pm
I would have assumed the first two have a pretty good chance of being right but the second two seem to be RD15 and RD16. This was done in about 10 seconds so I might have missed other possibilities! I've told several sellers about mistakes and usually get thanked for it. Maybe it's what we say and how we say it that makes the difference. I never actually tell people they are "wrong", I usually use terms like "misinformed". Remember the expression "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". But also maybe I've just been very lucky!
Login to Like
this post
@Harvey
If you were to go to the auction and view enlarged images you would see the first two stamps are not inscribed!
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:18:01pm
"the first two stamps are not inscribed"
You have to explain to me what you mean. I have R217 and R218 and they seem to look exactly like the $1 and $2 denominations here. I must be missing something! Obviously the $4 and $5 denominations are wrong since they should not be overprinted "stock transfer". Please tell me what I'm doing wrong with the first two stamps! I found this picture online identified to be R217 to R223. Are these correct?
I finally figured it out!!!!! If it was 217 and 218 there would be a small inscription inside the ribbon at the bottom. How in heck would you see that in their original picture? I've got to give you credit for spotting that - great set of eyes you have there! I've actually got to find a new 217 since my $1 doessn't have the inscription which makes it R240!! Thanks for that and again, GOOD JOB!!
Login to Like
this post
@Harvey
Your picture of the 7 stamps, appear to be inscribed. You need not check the $30 and $50 stamps as they are always inscribed series of 1914, there were only issued in 1914. The $50 value is rare.
If you are interested in learning more about these and how to right and proper ID them, get yourself a Scott Specialized cat. I would suggest getting one maybe 10 years old!
1898
Login to Like
this post
07:59:33am
Sorry I criticized your ID, my bad. I had my R217 and R140 reversed (interchanged) for some reason and couldn't find the inscription on what I thought was 217. It's fixed now but it would have stayed wrong but your post fixed it. Stupid mistake but we all make them once in a while!! Thanks again!!
Edit: Just for the heck of it I searched R217 on E-Bay and almost all of them are wrong. I think that no one is trying to trick anyone one purpose, they just don't know what they are doing! I've picked up most of my revenues from my long time dealer who makes very few mistakes. I would be very careful buying anything like that online because a lot of dealers don't seem to know what they are doing!
Login to Like
this post
Auction house listed this as RE57, misidentified but it really is RE107B!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Do you have a scan of RE 57. Since Scott shows the illustration RE4 for both the RE 57 and the RE 107B both inscribed "Series of 1916" the only way to tell the difference is the size of the serial numbers. I would like to see the difference for future reference.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
@mbo1142
My example is packed away, if you really want to see I'll unpack it?
But it's not necessary there is other clues, reference cancel, cancel will give you the right and proper way to tell.
Let me know if you really need to see a real RE57?
Please address your response to "1898"!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
Thanks for your response. No need to unpack. I will start checking the post marks.
Thanks again.
Login to Like
this post
@mbo1142
I don't think showing just an RE57 would really help you to see the difference! I'm thinking a side to side scan which I will provide of what the differences look like, but will have to do it later today, no problem I think it's worth unpacking. Can't do it right now as I have to unbuild a very old roll top desk, and I have no idea how to go about it (I'd like to take a chain saw to it, but my daughter would kill me!).
I will provide a side by side of both later.
1898
Login to Like
this post
@mbo1142
Getting back to the Topic!
See the attached!
Any comments or questions please address to "1898"
Thick number on top, thin number on bottom.
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@1898
Thanks, got it. Made copies for future reference.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
@mbo1142
Happy I could help.
1898
Login to Like
this post
Listed as R257 but it is not, it's really R217 as it's right and proper inscribed!
Comments or question please address to "1898"!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Not even close!
Comments address to "1898"
1898
Login to Like
this post
Incorrect Over Print!
Comments address to "1898"
1898
Login to Like
this post
I'm clearly never going to learn anything about US stamps if this thread is anything to go by
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@DaveSheridan
Good morning (my time), I was checking my 2 recent and happened to see your post, thank you!
You are correct you will not learn anything about U.S. stamps here, this is for "Educational Purposes Only".
I'd suggest to learn about U. S, stamps the way I did it was to get a Scott Specialized Cat. for U. S. stamps, then read it, there is a ton of information there just waiting for you, buy one 10 years old, cheaper that way!
Hope this helped
1898
Login to Like
this post
I am really confused... if it is for "Educational Purposes Only", then I would expect to learn something!
"Not even close" -- Why?
"Wrong overprint" -- What does a real overprint look like?
"Listed as R257 but it is not, it's really R217" -- What is the difference between the two?
What did I learn? -- ZIP! There is simply no education going on.
13 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Suggest you google "misidentified" I think perhaps this is the best way to answer your question about educational.
Hope this helps you, I don't think I could explain what misidentified means better or more clearly to right and proper convey the educational to you, hope you understand.
Many thanks for your response.
Please address responses to "1898"!
1898
Login to Like
this post
I know what misidentified means! The point is, you say an item is "misidentified", and then you don't explain why you believe it is "misidentified". Explaining why you believe it to be misidentified is the educational part of the post. Without your explanation there is no knowledge imparted, it is simply you stating your opinion. i.e, your posting is without context. The interaction you had earlier with mb01142 in this topic concerning RE57 verses RE107B was a very good example of imparting knowledge. I look forward to "learning" more. Cheers.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I really can't help you. But I'll try to help a little! See below!
My misidentified correcting images are packed away!
From one of your posting:
The not even close would require operation of reading the mind of the seller, I never learned how to read someone's mind, perhaps you could teach me (would be a good skill when I'm on a date!). Short answer there is not enough information to correctly identify the stamps in question, if I was to make a wild guess I suspect with the clues in the scan it might be 554 but this would be a totally wild guess!
Wrong over print, my stock book for the correct over print is packed, beside in addition it would require right and proper identification. If the reverse side was scanned this could help!
Listed as R257, I correctly identified it as R217!
The Education is letting SOR members of incorrect of stamp! I think this is valuable information!
If you need help on how to ID stamps send me a PM and I'll try to help you, pass on some tips and suggestions to give you some education!
Thank you!
1898
Login to Like
this post
1888
You talk in circles and nobody learns anything from you posts. So if you can not give better information to help others, then do not bother posting anything on SOR.
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
If I PM you, then I am the only one who benefits from your knowledge. The purpose of the discussion board is to share knowledge with everyone. When you post a statement like "Not even close", "Wrong overprint" or "It's really R217", then I am left to try and read your mind.
"Not Even Close" - What makes you think that it is not a picture of 1917 2 Cent Washington stamps? What should a 1917 2 Cent Washington Stamp look like? What do the 'clues' in the scan mean to you? (maybe I don't have a catalog)
"Wrong Overprint" - If you don't have a picture you could at least try to explain why, in your opinion, the overprint is incorrect... Is the printing too thick, too thin? Is the spacing between 'STOCK' and 'TRANSFER' not right? Is the font not right? How would a scan of the reverse side help with the identification?
"Listed as R257" - Why, in your opinion, is it actually R217? If you don't have a picture, then maybe you could try to explain what "right and proper inscribed" means? (remember, I don't have a catalog).
Please... inquiring minds want to know.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Not even close. My cat. is misplaced (packing mess), my wild guess would be R174, but to confirm if someone has the right and proper cat. and would not mind helping out look it up!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
R174 not even close. Totally different images. May be you should look in the catalogue. To show you how easy it would be for you to inform members why something is misidentified, read the following.
The reason it is not R257 is because it is inscribed "Series of 1914" The R257 does not have that inscription.
The RC4 over print is wrong. It should read "Future Delivery" and not "Stock Transfer"
Not long drawn out explanations, just simple answers to why something is misidentified.
I agree with the other members. If you do not want or can't provide information on why something is mis ID, please stop posting such items.
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@mbo1142
Thank you very much! Your simple explanations clear up a lot of the issues that were posted. Cheers.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I will continue my educational "Misidentified" when I find them, it's good to know info.
Please if you have question address them "1898".
1898
Login to Like
this post
1898 -
I will not address my comments strictly to you, as this discussion board is for ALL to read.
Now - I suggest you STOP saying "my stuff is packed up" and refrain from posting until you UNpack what you refer to so you can SHOW it as an example/examples of what you claim to be "right and proper"(.... a phrase which apparently you made up...)
Until then, you aren't teaching anyone anything constructive.
10 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Misidentified, as you can clearly see! This is not a 1914 stamp!
Hope no SOR member buys it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Everyone knows that there are unscrupulous sellers on Ebay like the example shown who attempt to sell common cheap stamps for rediculous prices.
Your postings do nothing to advance the hobby.
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Educational information for SOR members, this advances the hobby!
How do you know it's a unscrupulous seller on Ebay? I think you are likely right, but there's no way for you to know for sure?
Education is power!
Do you have any misidentified stamps to share with us?
1898
Login to Like
this post
Moderator comment: There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of these posts so not violating any rules. If someone does not like these posts, ignore them. He now has them all in one place so not appearing as flooding and one can skip them.
Collector comment: To make the thread better, it is about delivery of the information to make it more educational so someone who is looking at these to be able to help identify misidentified issues. Sometimes it may be explaining a better understand of a catalog or better yet a variety the seller missed. A focus on missed varieties would be more educational.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be US Scott 301, misidentified, I think (my guess) the right and proper US Scott 319g type #1. Type #1 one of the leaves that's part of the left value tablet in part of the margin, also bottom left curved line is not thicken on the curved portion! Unable to determine watermark orientation!
Reference is scan.
If any SOR member has better information of what you think it is, please share it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
it's not 301, which is a different design from the stamp shown, which is 319 or one of its variants.
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Supplement to my posting Date Time Group (DTG) 15 Aug 2023 09:11:49am
Excuse me, I did not mention anything about the color, my guess the color is right and proper carmine, hence my guess it's might be US Scott 319g type 1
1898
Login to Like
this post
A picture is worth a thousand words... this is an actual Scott catalog #301, which is a completely different design than the one being sold in the referenced eBay listing:
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@Terry
Thanks, I did not have a ready example to show!
What color is your stamp?
1898
Login to Like
this post
I would say carmine is the color of my copy of Scott #301, and I think that is the only color my Scott catalog specifies. There may be shades or color changes due to light exposure. Trying to determine color from a computer scan is very problematic, due to the program settings on the scanner being used. I would be very cautious about eBay listings offering valuable color varieties, unless they come with a certificate.
Login to Like
this post
01:51:52pm
According to the Scott's US specialized 301 exists in carmine, bright carmine, deep carmine and carmine rose. All of these have the same number and the same price ( 50 cents used and $15 mint, $27 if never hinged) so I doubt very much if it is important enough to be a major concern. I have a few slightly different shades but that could be due to fading as much as anything else! The Scott's specialized lists many colour shades for most stamps but usually keeps the numbers the same.
Login to Like
this post
@Terry
My thinking (my opinion only) I would not get a certificate (I assuming you are talking about an expert certificate?) to determine the color on your US Scott 301?
Again thank you very much for showing your US Scott 301!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be a double transfer, it's nothing more than a dry print, I'm not even sure it's a R5b!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be 567 double transfer and a Los Angeles Precancel, way off base misidentified!
First off it's not 567 which is flat press printed, this stamp is rotary press printed, unknown which Scott number it is!
Second off the condition it's listed as Scott 569!
Third off it's listed as precancel which it is not, muted cancel!
Fourth off seller says it a double transfer, it's not, this is a dry print sometimes referred as a sculpted ink!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be plate block of Scott 401, not even close. The real 401 plate block would be the one cent green Panama-Pacific Expo Issue of 1914-1915 perf. 10.
IAW plate number, this is should be 409, Imprint IX but of course to make the right and proper ID I'd have the stamp plate block in person to make sure!
1898
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Perhaps I should explain how I find these stamps. I'm always searching for cancels. While searching I find these misidentified stamps.
I'm not searching for misidentified stamps just happen on to them searching for (what I call rare cancels)!
This afternoon misidentified, not even close.
Said to be 344 but not. Using the Illus. Number this is really A140, but said to be A139. Now I can't tell you what the right and proper Scott Cat. is, I'd have to have this stamp in my hands on order to properly ID. it.
Hope everybody enjoys this little bit of educational value.
1898
Login to Like
this post
03:32:56pm
I believe those are Shermack coils and were used in vending machines. I have a couple dozen of them and they make a very interesting mini collection. They're not very expensive and fairly easy to find. There are other types of vending machine coils but these seem to be the most common. Without looking I think my Scott's Specialized has a section on them somewhere near the end of the book.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be Scott cat. number 343 Franklin one cent, not even close to being right, the 2 center might be 344 but unknown for sure!
For the right and proper id. for these two stamps the seller should take this one and 2 more similar offering and properly ID. them!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Harvey,
there is a section on private perforations in the Specialized. And the Schermack, Type 3, as shown, is the most common of these.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Concerning the listing for "US STAMP #344 2c carmine Washington 1908...", I believe it could be the 1912 issue watermarked single line USPS Sc #409 Type I - $1.20. If it is offset printed, then perhaps the 1920 issue unwatermarked Sc #532 thru 534A, depending on the Type IV thru Type VI - $10 to $85 (I doubt it could be Type VII - $1,850,00)... Of course the real attraction is the Shermack perforation. The starting price of 99c could be a bargain, depending on the shipping.
Login to Like
this post
@Terry
In regards to my posting reference: 1898 18 Aug 2023 01:49:32pm
You made some mistakes 409 is A140, same for the offsets! You missed 459 type 1 rotary press and it would be another error as its A140
In order to make the right and proper ID., you would need to have the stamp in question in front of you!
But, thank you!
Good luck in your future stamp collecting.
Do you collect the U.S. Franklin/Washington head stamps 1908-1921?
I myself have been collecting these Franklin/Washington head 1908-1921 since 1958 and have ID. thousands of them!
If you reply, please address to "1898"
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be Scott 251, but is not, it's really Scott 250 (IAW Durland's Cat.) if it was Scott 251 the cat, is $1,000, but Scott 250 cat. is $110!
I was searching for plate varieties on the first BEP issues, there are many varieties for all these. This misidentified was the very first stamp that showed up.
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:11:09am
"there is a section on private perforations in the Specialized"
It's called " Vending and Affixing Machine Perforations" in my 2016 Scott's specialized US. This book is as crucial to US collectors as Unitrade is to Canada collectors. Several companies did these special stamps and each seemed to do a few types - The Brinkenhoff Company, The Farwell Company, The Shermack Company, The US Automatic Vending Company and the Attleboro Stamp Company. I wonder if anyone in SOR specializes in these stamps. If you do could you scan some of your collection. I once considered it but Shermack seems to be the only really affordable company and this stuff is not easy to find, and a lot of it is very expensive! If I have extra money to spend on US I'd rather spend it on classic material. I just picked up a gorgeous copy of US #13 from Greg to finish page #1 of my US collection. When the stamp arrives I'll have my friend scan the page for me to post! Greg has some amazing classic material on auction from his doctor's father's US collection. It's worth checking out!!
Login to Like
this post
@1898 - I guess I am confused... you stated in your first posting "Said to be 344 but not. Using the Illus. Number this is really A140, but said to be A139.", and now you state that the listing is NOT a Scott type A140. I agreed with your first posting that the item listed is not Scott type A139 and it is, in fact, Scott type A140. What did I get wrong?
Scott type A139 would have the value displayed as (TWO CENTS), while the Scott type A140 would have the value displayed as (2 CENTS 2).
Login to Like
this post
See Scott cat. for Vending & Affixing Machine Perforations
Counterfeits are prevalent . . . .
If you have the Scott Cat. read the forward section, I tried scanning it but not very good results (my scanner is 15 years old).
The Schermack Company, Detroit, Michigan, Type 3 is the most common see my previous posting for an example "1898, 18 Aug 2023 01:49:32pm", this type 3 is also the most faked! Unable to determine the stamp in my referenced posting, you need to measure it in order to arrive at the right and proper determination if real or faked
You will find some of the low vales sometimes faked!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@Terry
Reference your posting 19 Aug 2023 19 Aug 2023 10:53:00am, could you provide more information or a quote please, I've read my posting and do not see what you are talking about. But I do make mistakes sometimes.
1898
Login to Like
this post
1898 -
Your first posting, "Said to be 344 but not. Using the Illus. Number this is really A140, but said to be A139. Now I can't tell you what the right and proper Scott Cat. is, I'd have to have this stamp in my hands on order to properly ID. it."
Your second posting, "You made some mistakes 409 is A140, same for the offsets! You missed 459 type 1 rotary press and it would be another error as its A140"
First you say it is Scott type A140 and then you say it is a mistake to consider it a Scott A140?
Login to Like
this post
@Terry
Maybe I'm extra dense today, sir I simply do not see what you are talking about, if you think I made a mistake then I'll accept that (I just do not see my mistake).
The bottom line is the stamp in posting date time group 18 Aug 2023 01:49:32pm is misidentified! That is the main point!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott 307A122, not even close, it's really 282c/A94 type one
To make it easier for SOR members I've joined Scott Number and the Illus. number together!
I was looking for Scott 307/A122 that Johl described as the best double transfer of the series. Been looking for years and years still no luck, but I never give up!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be 2 Scott 449's, if this was true what a great deal for someone, but not even close. What are the actual Scott cat. number, unknown as the images are poor!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be all U.S. Scott #500's, not even close, don't know what the right and proper Scott Cat. numbers are.
Too bad because this would be a good deal if it was real!
Could not enlarge all at one time, but if interested just look this lot up and see the enlarged images.
1898
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott 416, one problem, it's not Scott 416.
Scott Illus. Number (SIN Number) for 416 is SIN A148, but in this case the correct SIN is A140!
Impossible to determine the right and proper ID for this example, as I would need to have this stamp in person!
1898
Login to Like
this post
My suggestion of putting all these 'unidentified' posts into one thread was scoffed at a little over a week ago.
It's nice to see that common sense has come to the fore.
Thank you.
Londonbus1
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@londonbus1
I'm sorry londonbus1, I cannot locate your suggestion!
In any case, this thread is better organized now and if it really was your suggestion than thank you.
Do you have any take on my latest posting with the said to be 416 SIN A148?
Again thank you for your suggestion, I'm very sorry I could not locate it, was it addressed to @1898.
1898
Login to Like
this post
"Hi 1898,
There is one simple reason to add this to your other post so let me explain.
Later today, or tomorrow, you might find another 'misidentified' stamp from the USA or elsewhere. Only those visitors to SOR will read your post. Later in the week, or next week you might find more misidentified stamps and so all over the board there will be threads for misidentified stamps. In any given world, it will make the board look a trifle silly and definitely not looked after. Which will be bad for SOR. Having a list of misidentified stamps in one thread (even a thread for each country is preferable) is far easier to read and looks much more neat and tidy. I would recommend one thread for all countries in the General Philatelic category.
But all this is up to you unless those higher up the ladder are in agreement. I just ask nicely that you think about it, think about the board and it's appearance.
many thanks
Londonbus1"
"@londonbus1
I do not agree, but the higher ups have decided, they all go into one thread, makes no difference where the stamps comes from, could be regular issue, revenue, etc. and etc.
Thank you
1898
"
Login to Like
this post
If you want the thread to be quick to load continue you use jpgs and not png files.PNGs are larger for the same image so can be slow to load. SOR does not break them up into page,
Login to Like
this post
@londonbus1
Ok, I see now, too bad you did not include the Date Time Group (DTG) I don't know what else to call it but DTG.
Your posting must have been in another thread and not the current thread as I could not locate it unless it was deleted!
Again thank you, your were correct and thank you.
So any thoughts about the Scott 416 SIN A148 posting?
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be R245, not even close. The stamp in question is really right and proper R221 inscribed 1914 (see additional scan reference Pick up Point arrows)
There are other clues as it's dated May 17, 1916, now then R245 was first issued in 1917. The transfer rolls for R245 were not even made up in 1916 the reported date!
1898
Login to Like
this post
I'm surprised with what I'm finding, when I started this thread I did not think I would find so many, there more out there!
Here's another one just like the previous posting.
Hope no one on SOR is looking for a R259 and buys this one, you will be disappointed!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Found another one, said to be Scott 301 SIN A116, but not even close, wrong color, wrong face value. It's really one of the SIN A138's impossible to determine the right and proper ID from a scan!
Educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott 502 (which is flat plate printed) not even close, it is really Scott 530 (which is offset press printed), in addition there is a right and proper plate number! It seems to me the dealer could easier check plate number to determine the status of this plate number.
Great educational value!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott # RE1c, not even close. First off Scott Cat. does not list RE1c! This is either RE15 or RE30 (can't tell if watermark is Single Line 190R or Double line 191R from this scan!)
RE1 is 1/4 cent face value, SIN RE1. The scan is $2.00 face value SIN RE1a!
Great educational value!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott 499, not even close, it's really an offset issue as you can clearly see!
1898
Login to Like
this post
You say that you can see it is clearly an offset issue. I cannot tell if it is an offset issue. Could you explain what it is in the picture that you posted the shows it is an offset issue? That would be "education".
As far as I know, the key to separating offset from rotary and flat plate is to realize that the offset stamps were not engraved. This means that the ink lies flat on the paper of the offset stamp. If you hold the stamp at a very sharp angle to a light source, the color on the stamp will almost disappear. Would not one need to have the stamp in hand to determine that?
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@d1stamper
I did not show the back of the stamp in question, see scan attached here is the right and proper scan as requested (somehow I forgot to show it).
@Terry
You have a very good point, I forget after 60+ years of working with Washington/Franklin 1908-1921 stamps and after thousands and thousands of identifying them I can spot an offset even on a computer monitor. The stamp in question is Type VI Scott 528A SIN A140. In addition this stamp has something on the trail of the left figure "2" unable to determine from the scan!
I suppose YOU would need to have the stamp in person, but I can tell right off!
Another clue would be the Toga button.
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
Thank you for the added clarification. It is very difficult to see from the picture that was posted. However, a close-up of the listing is much easier to identify the stamp Type. If it is Type VI, I see the toga line is complete, but I can't discern the lines in the toga button. The Nose shading is hard to determine. I don't see the line of color in the left '2' as being thin, but there is something definitely "broken" (Type IV also has a thin or broken left '2', but a broken toga line).
Login to Like
this post
06:59:43pm
Reading all of this makes me wonder how my wife and I managed to ID all these stamps! But somehow we did!!! And there's no way I'm going to recheck them all, my eyes were much better then than they are now!
Login to Like
this post
I know, Harvey... I agree it boggles the mind. Computer scanners, microscopes and cataract surgery have made a big difference for me.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be 499E Booklet Pane, but there is a problem as it's not 499E, as it's not even close, it's really 498 booklet pane. Besides face value is wrong and the color is right and proper wrong color!!!
Misidentified education!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Oh?.. I must disagree. It is close!! it is 498e. The 2017 Scott catalog value for 498e is $4.25 and the value for 499e is $6.75. I would suspect since it is being offered at $1.29 or best offer, that the seller simply typed a '9' instead of a '8' by mistake.
I really fail to see why you are always so indignant when a seller has made a simple error in their listing. If the seller was asking $2,000 then maybe.
If you are wanting to educate, why not post a picture of the correct item to better explain the difference you are trying to communicate. When you say it is the wrong color.. what is the right color? When you say it is the wrong face value.. what is the right face value? If it is the wrong design... what does the correct design look like? With your 60 years experience... how is it that you can tell a flat press printing simply from a picture on a computer?
IMHO your postings do not educate, they are simply exhortations of what you know, or believe to be true. Show collectors how to see these things for themselves. Then education will truly be happening and they will have learned.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
When you say "I really fail to see why you are always so indignant when a seller has made a simple error in their listing. If the seller was asking $2,000 then maybe.", I'm not indignant, just pointing out a fact. You say the seller made a simple error in their listing, perhaps the seller did make a mistake, but I'm unable to read the seller's mind. I have no way of knowing what's in the seller's mind when this lot was listed!
Pointing out the fact that this lot is misidentified or a mistake is educational!
It's really up to the seller to correct the listing if it was a mistake.
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott 499 SIN A140, not even close it's SIN A139 (unable to make determination to what the Scott cat. number is)!
Educational as it's Misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Lord, I thought I had the patience of Job... But I guess not. It is not educational to tell someone "That's the way it is!" The education part comes when you explain why it is the way it is. Show them examples of what is correct and what is not correct. Give them guidance on where to find the correct answers. They say you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink... and I'm worried that this one will die of thirst!
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@Terry
Again, calling attention to a misidentified stamp is educational!
It's up to the individual to sort out the rest on their own, not my job!
1898
Login to Like
this post
I rest my case.....
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@Terry
Think about this! I've found maybe 15 or 20 offsets recently that we said to be Scott # 500, but have not found a real Scott #500 offered as an offset! Why do you think this is so? The sellers offering the offsets as Scott #500's know what they are doing! It's fairly easy to sell offsets as 500's to new collectors. A seller is in business to make money!
The buyer looking for a 500 for his/her collection has to do their own authentication. Buyer be aware!
A collector does not learn anything if I do the work for them, I do as you say, but I think that would be a disservice to the collector.
I point out what is misidentified, and that is educational! Right and proper the way I see it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
So when you go to the stamp club in the sky, your knowledge will go with you. You're certainly not imparting any knowledge in your posts.
12 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I gave up on WF issues (too many needed certs) so started collecting worldwide. I decided I liked stamps. If you think about it, if this series was issued today, Scott would not give a major catalog number to many of the issues (all the plate variations).
Login to Like
this post
@1898
I have an idea. If a member of SOR wants to buy a Washington/Franklin stamp off of Ebay, then before they buy it, they send you a picture for right and proper identification to make sure they are not being fooled. That way we can use you as our go to expert for such stamps.
Are you willing to take on that task?
8 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@mbo1142
No!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
Why?
mbo1142
Login to Like
this post
@1898
Why have you not answered my questions???
How do you know that is not the correct number, when you say you are moving and everything is packed away?
When are you moving?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be Scott # 501, not even close, this appears to me (image(s) are a little blurred) an Offset Type IV Scott # 530!
Posting that a stamp is misidentified is educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
Educate means to develop the faculties and powers of (a person) by teaching, instruction, or schooling.
Education means the study we do or the knowledge we get from schools and colleges etc.
Educated means someone who has received the knowledge (education).
Educational means something that provides that knowledge (education).
Where is the "something that provides that knowledge", i.e. what makes your statement educational? You have not provided any thing that provides that knowledge other that it is misidentified. Misidentified is not knowledge unless you know why. Either you know why or do not know why and are just guessing or you know why and refuse to spend the time and effort to Educate. (See above definition).
By the way, you still have not answered my or d1stamper's questions.
mbo1142
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
03:13:19pm
I think the main thing to get out of all of this is the huge number of misidentified stamps on E-Bay. I have had most of these Washington's and Franklin's for a very long time and since my wife and I IDed them when we both had more patience and better eye sight I'm assuming they were done correctly. But back to e-bay, I only buy from a very small number of dealers I have had good luck with. I could give a list but somehow that doesn't seem right since I'm sure there are others out there as well. None of the dealers I've seen in these posts are ones I buy from, and that's a very good thing!
I wish "the poster" would explain things a bit better so we could learn more from this, but I guess that's just not his way of doing things, If we don't like his way then maybe we should stay away from this set of posts. Again, just my opinion!
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Moderator comment: If you do not care for the thread, just ignore it. Further meta discussion is not needed.
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott #500 type 1a, not even close, it's an offset printed stamp, unable able to determine for sure, but if I was to guess 528b.
Good education!
Note: I've never seen a Scott # 500 misidentified as an offset printed stamp, something to think about why that is!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott #332 SIN A139, not even close, it's one of the offsets, looks to be Scott #528 Type Va SIN A140, but to be sure and right and proper in person ID really required!
Another educational misidentified find.
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be a Scott # 501, not even close, actual Scott # 530 type IV!
Right and proper education example of a misidentified stamp!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Said to be Scott # 502, but not even close, this is a block of four, my guess it's one of the right and proper perf. 10 x 10 issues, I can't determine for sure as I would need the stamp in person to properly ID. it!
Excellent educational value as being misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott # 502, problem is it's misidentified so then it is right and proper not even close, it is actually Scott # 530 type 4 or as stated in cat. IV, it even has a plate number listed in the cat. for plate numbers. This plate number is not listed for Scott 502
Another outstanding educational misidentified stamp.
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Misidentified Scott number with a fake certificate!
The certificate is not shown!
Said to be Scott # 489d, in my Scott Cat. there is a 489 listed, but not a 489d, but this one comes with a certificate so it has to be correct, trouble is it's not correct which makes the certificate a fake.
Scott # 489 is a rotary press printed coil 3 cent stamp type 1.
So what is this listed 489d, for proper ID. right and proper ID. would require having the stamp in person. If I was to guess just from the image it appears to be maybe a flat press printed stamp and using the Weiss method (only my guess) 11 x 11 perf. which it could be a 498d which is listed double impression.
Another educational misidentified stamp!
1898
Login to Like
this post
1898
"The certificate is not shown!"
The certificate is shown in the listing.
"Said to be Scott # 489d, in my Scott Cat. there is a 489 listed, but not a 489d,"
My Scott Catalog shows a 498d which is a double impression.
There is a typing error in the listing heading.
Login to Like
this post
@d1stamper
Many thanks, I wondered why the certificate was not shown when I first saw this very late last night, or maybe I just missed it and it was there.
In any case another educational misidentified!
Again thank you!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Not misidentified, just a typing error. Notified the seller and he thanked me and made the correction in the listing.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be Scott # R13 which it is, but still misidentified as it not even close to be a part perf. Actually it's Scott # R13c, an actual Part perf. example would have 2 part perf. sides, this one has what appears to be a trimmed one side not two sides (correct me if I'm wrong).
I do not have an actual example of my own, and don't recall ever seeing one in this orientation.
If a SOR member has an actual R13b in this orientation I would like to see it?
Another misidentified stamp very educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
I thought all this time you were reaching out to the sellers who are making these mistakes. They are the ones who need the education the most.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@smauggie
Not me, I learned my mistake doing that, I notified a seller and for my good deed I was blocked and could not buy from that seller anymore, and the seller has lots of good stuff except the one I found!
So if a SOR member wants to notify seller go ahead, but I won't do it ever again!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
02:06:39pm
I have two copies of R13c, one is normal but the other has a side with trimmed perfs very similar to that one. I'm sorry but the only scan I have shows the whole page and the top stamp is a bit shiny because of the mount. I know this doesn't show a partial perfed stamp but it does show another one with trimmed sides.
Login to Like
this post
@Poster
Thank you for showing, very impressive page full of stamps!
I see your you added arrows, I assume they are computer generated and not hand drawn! The top one almost looks hand drawn.
1898
Login to Like
this post
03:11:00pm
@1898 Computer generated, but I have to really practice my arrows!!!
I don't collect US revenues in as much detail as you do but I find it is very rare to run into an (a) (imperforate) or (b) (part perforate) and prices really back this up. When they say "part perforate" I assume they mean either horizontally or vertically. If a seller has a stamp with one imperforate side I assume it is a perforated stamp from the top or side of the sheet. Calling it part perforate would be wrong but you see it fairly often. Do I have this right? I assume imperforate on 3 sides just means it is a (b) from the top or bottom of the sheet. Revenues, even though I have a good collection, are not my specialty so I am just learning, I hope!!
Login to Like
this post
@Poster
Yes you are correct!
Thanks
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Another educational misidentified stamp!
Said to be Scott #409, trouble is it's not even close.
Scott #409 is a flat press printed imperf. stamp.
This stamp is a coil rotary press printed stamp! Unable to determine the right and proper Scott cat. number for this coil.
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott # 544, but this is a coil stamp.
Scott 544 is a sheet stamp, so this lot is not even close to the right and proper ID.
Unknown for sure what Scott number is (need to have more details about it that are lacking!), an in person examination to determine the right and proper ID. would be required.
Great educational value calling your attention to the stamp being misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
05:11:48pm
Powers that be - Could we start a Misidentified #2 please? This one is a bit large!
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Another outstanding misidentified stamp, very educational!
Said to be Scott # 502, not even close, actually it is Scott # 530!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Another misidentified stamp, very educational!
Said to be Scott # 544, trouble is it's not even close. Going by what little information is given it might be 498.
The seller provided 2 scans of the reverse side but both scans are blurred, but there is enough to tell it's a flat plate printed stamp!
The seller does not accept returns (I wonder why)
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be 1908 U.S. 3 cent stamps Scott #333, not even close, all these are offset issued series 1918-1920!
EDUCATIONAL misidentified stamps!
1898
Login to Like
this post
I changed the subject to 1) better describe what is in the thread and 2) to keep all the ebay lot posts into one thread.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@angore
Thanks
Just to be clear and honest, not all of these are Ebay listing.
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be U.S. 359 rare used w/cert., not even close! This stamp is a coil stamp and it is not perf. 12 x 12. Unknown what the actual Scott number is, as there is not enough right and proper information provided! In addition no reverse side scan provided!
EDUCATIONAL as it's a misidentified stamp.
If any SOR member is looking to purchase a 359 hope you do not purchase this misidentified stamp!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be Scott #387, only trouble is, it's not even close! 387 is a coil stamp, this is a sheet stamp. Cannot ID. this stamp as there is not enough right and proper information.
Misidentified is EDUCATIONAL!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott E1, not even close, E1 is SIN SD1, this stamp is SIN SD2! Cannot properly ID. this stamp as there is not enough right and proper information!
Misidentified is educational as such!
For those who may or may not know the diff. between SD1 & SD2 I've added a second scan, see the Pick up Points (PUPS) arrows. The PUPs point to the major diff. between SD1 and SD2, there are other differences, but small and not easy to show!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Mint with OG, NH, Imperf. no Scott Number provided with SIN A25, not even close as this is a used stamp, appears to have a faded target cancel (My guess), it's not mint! Unable to determine the right and proper Scott cat. number!
Educational misidentified stamp as such.
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be R221 ("Scott ID. Inscribed Series 1914", not even close as it's not Inscribed Series 1914, unable to determine the correct Scott number as there isn't any right and proper information!
Educational as such misidentified!
I've added Pick up Point arrow to show where "1914" should be in the second scan!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be Scott # 331, not even close!
Scott #331 is SIN A138
This stamp is SIN A155
There is not enough information to determine the right and proper ID.
Another educational stamp that is Misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Do we really need to concentrate on this?
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Said to be Scott #500 Type 1a, trouble it's not even close, this is an offset printed stamp Scott # 528b type VII!
As far as I know this is a newly listed listing!
Educational because it misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Said to be Scott 343 & 344, now then SIN for each 343 is SIN A138 and SIN for 344 is SIN A139, not even close, unable to determine the right and proper Scott Cat. numbers as there is not enough information! For what is shown the one cent stamp is SIN A140 and for the 2 cents SIN A140, different designs!
Educational as such misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
It would be interesting to follow up and report if any sold and for how much.
Login to Like
this post
Yes it would be interesting.
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be Scott # 491, not even close.
Scott # 491 is SIN A140
This pair is SIN A157, unable to determine which Scott number this pair is, need right and proper more information!
Education as such being Misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be 10 dollar official, but you can easily see it's a fake, not even close!
Unable to provide Scott Cat. number and SIN as my Cat. is right and proper packed away.
Education as such the stamp in question is misidentified!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I am not an expert, but I believe the faded word "Facsimile" above the word STATE would make it so.
Scott #O70
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
(1)
Right you are!
Instead of fake I should have used "Facsimile".
Fake or facsimile, still not worth the asking price (just my way of thinking).
Still misidentified, very educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Said to be 491, not even close, see the scan!
Educational as such right and proper misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
Do you ever report the misidentified stamps to ebay? If so, does ebay ever do anything?
Thanks,
Josh
Login to Like
this post
@joshtanski
No.
1898
Login to Like
this post
05:36:01pm
I really don't think E-Bay would care too much. I deal with an antique site called Ruby Lane that is a much smaller site and encourages people to report mistakes. I've seen a few, report them to the sellers and always get thanked for it. E-Bay is way too big to handles complaints and many of the sellers are crooks who don't want to be told either!!
Login to Like
this post
@1898
I’m more interested if you ever find anything really valuable misidentified as a common variety? I expect that is more likely in a collection, as I have experienced that, but surely with the amount of auctions you go through and the apparent “infinite” free time you have to devote to this enterprise, you must have come across some nice things at a discount price. Any thing you’d like to share?
Login to Like
this post
@HungaryForStamps
Hi, yes I do find some once in a while. I used to post in SOR what I found, but never received much encouragement from SOR members. My posting were titled "Unrecognized".
My posting for misidentified, these are just what I find, I check for certain items in the "newly listed". I don't spend my time, maybe 30 minutes a day total.
I found one last night but did not post it. It's a revenue stamp but with a rare cancel. What I mean rare is difficult to find, not encountered very often. As far as I know it's still on Ebay I can't remember the cat. number, it's the $30.00 series of 1914 with "F. D." future delivery provisional July 1918 New Orleans cancel. This cancel was only used during July 1918!
If you have more question(s) ask soon as in the morning I moving back to Nevada, about 1,400 miles.
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
What a crazy string of posts. Honestly, I didn't learn much of anything from the examples posted. However, I did learn that MBO1182 has some finely tuned eyesight.
I have purchased several mis-identified stamps on Ebay in the last year. All sellers gave me refunds, and most apologized with a TY. I think notifying the seller is a good idea. No seller is perfect, and likely would appreciate the heads up. Didn't someone in this thread suggest that is the education that would be provided?
Login to Like
this post
"Didn't someone in this thread suggest that is the education that would be provided?"
This was suggested a couple of times by different people.....he refused.
I have since ignored his feeble Columbo impressions.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:32:44pm
@moderator
Please consider closing this thread. It is taking too long to load.
Roy
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This thread has been split, moving 3 posts onto a new Thread titled:"Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings (part 2)"
Login to Like
this post
09:33:08pm
Comments please address your posting to "1898", I do not read all the posting!!!
Here are two examples from an auction house, in both cases not even close.
Do SOR members have misidentified to show us?
Special note: The cover is dated 1921, 579 was not issued until 1923!
Another 2 examples where so simple but not identified correctly!
1898
Login to Like
this post
APS #222602 and Internet Philatelic Dealers Association #439
10 Aug 2023
08:46:10am
Approvals
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
1898
With all of these misidentified finds that you are pointing out to us...are you contacting the listing person to let them know they have the identification incorrect and why it is wrong and what the correct number should be?
Or are you just pointing them out to us for some reason?
Login to Like
this post
08:59:05am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@purrfin2
I'm not telling the seller they have misidentified their stamp(s).
1898
Login to Like
this post
APS #222602 and Internet Philatelic Dealers Association #439
10 Aug 2023
09:23:57am
Approvals
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
So you look for faults and do not correct them, or attempt to correct them by notifying the seller a mistake has happened.
I come to the discussion boards to learn about stamps from others that have more knowledge than I. When I see someone like yourself that will point out others mistakes and not HELP them to learn and correct then like My Cousin Vinnie says, I'm done witch you!
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
10 Aug 2023
09:50:15am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
"So you look for faults and do not correct them, or attempt to correct them"
nor share your knowledge of how or why they are misidentified so that members here might be better educated. That would be a useful and valuable addition to the DB. Instead, you play these silly guessing games which amount to "I know things you don't ... ha ha".
Roy
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:34:19am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@purrfin2 &roy
I passing on to the SOR members education about misidentified stamps, what SOR members do with this info. is up to them.
I would think that right and proper identification mistakes (if that is what they are) would be of interest, perhaps SOR members are not concerned about this?
1898
Login to Like
this post
APS #222602 and Internet Philatelic Dealers Association #439
10 Aug 2023
10:37:39am
Approvals
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
But where in this post is the correction? You have pointed out they are wrong, but where is the answer? You are keeping information which may be valuable to someone all to yourself. Why are you not sharing the answer?
Have you contacted the seller? What do you want us to do about this situation?
Oh, excuse me this is for @1898
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
10 Aug 2023
11:03:16am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
"I passing on to the SOR members education about misidentified stamps"
There is no "education" involved if you do not explain why the identifications are wrong.
Roy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:10:31am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Roy
The education is pointing out the mistakes. What SOR does with this right and proper info. is up to them!
By the way from an image on the computer monitor has does one determine what the gauge is for the perfs? How does one determine if there is a watermark? I have no idea, please educate me how to do this, maybe by magic?
1898
Login to Like
this post
APS #222602 and Internet Philatelic Dealers Association #439
10 Aug 2023
11:24:44am
Approvals
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
"The education is pointing out the mistakes."
@1898
I totally disagree. That is not educating. That is demeaning and condescending. Where in the world is pointing out someone's mistake education? Why not just say they are stupid and be done with it? This is a form of bullying and should not be tolerated here on SOR or anywhere on the internet.
8 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
01:42:30pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Let's just agree to disagree?
Oh I forgot @purrfin2
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Now and then I go to ebay searching for an elusive stamp, sometimes I found out that there are stamps that are misidentified so I contact the seller to let them know and correct the mistake, I do get a thanks for my observation and the listing is changed, other times I'm completely ignored.
While I agree that it would be next to impossible to determined the perforations on an computer image of a stamp not so with the watermark, all it takes is a water tray and a bit of water or whatever fluid you fancy to reveal the watermark, take a picture and post it, size doesn't matter in this case.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Actually I think not telling what the alleged (to be fair to ebay seller) misidentification is but seeing if anyone else could spot the error too. There may be more than one.
Now if I see an error I may report to the seller if I consider it an honest mistake but sometimes I do not since I suspect their response would not be positive.
Login to Like
this post
04:23:39pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Everyone
Learn by my mistake informing the seller of the mistake of identification. I've done this maybe 3 times, but never again!
There was one dealer who had lots of material I was looking for, I found an error, told him about it and he blocked me from ever bidding on his material!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
How about this suggestion for making the posts more informative: instead of using the same title “Misidentified”, why not include the correct Scott catalog number in the title so at least the information, for what it’s worth, is easily searchable? So something like “Misidentified Scott #nnn”. That would go a long way to making these posts useful for members.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
08:33:00pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@HungaryForStamps
Good suggestion, makes more sense than what I'm doing, again thank you.
I'm not sure I even going to do this anymore, mostly what I got was negative.
I thought I was passing on good information.
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I contacted the seller regarding the first example of a mis-identified #579 and they ended the listing.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
08:40:40pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Hope you will not be blocked from bidding from this seller, you never know it happened to me and the seller is a large dealer on Ebay!
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Blocking on ebay is out of control with a few large ebay sellers. (thinking about one in particular in Belgium)
Check their negative reviews. If I ever want to check anyone's review, I am only interested in neutral or negatives. Positive reviews tell you very little.
For sellers feeling the need to block anyone who dares asking a question, or offering a suggestion, it is their loss as far as I am concerned. I got blocked for asking about a delayed (lost eventually it turned out) mail...seller refusing any communications afterward.
I wish there was a way for ebay to act upon total "lunatics" (and I have met a few)! or automatically terminate blocking of accounts after a certain time.
rrr.....
Login to Like
this post
06:33:58pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
What I find interesting in my case I in the past bought a lot of revenue cancels from this dealer, who is a major dealer, so the dealer lost my business and my dollars.
I will never again let dealers know of an error they made!
If other SOR members want to do this go ahead, just be warned!
Login to Like
this post
09:09:24pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Here are four stamps not even close to R217-R220. Not inscribed!
I will not be informing the seller!
I can't tell what the right and proper identification is!
This is education!
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
12 Aug 2023
09:46:27pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I would have assumed the first two have a pretty good chance of being right but the second two seem to be RD15 and RD16. This was done in about 10 seconds so I might have missed other possibilities! I've told several sellers about mistakes and usually get thanked for it. Maybe it's what we say and how we say it that makes the difference. I never actually tell people they are "wrong", I usually use terms like "misinformed". Remember the expression "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". But also maybe I've just been very lucky!
Login to Like
this post
10:06:03pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Harvey
If you were to go to the auction and view enlarged images you would see the first two stamps are not inscribed!
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
12 Aug 2023
10:18:01pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
"the first two stamps are not inscribed"
You have to explain to me what you mean. I have R217 and R218 and they seem to look exactly like the $1 and $2 denominations here. I must be missing something! Obviously the $4 and $5 denominations are wrong since they should not be overprinted "stock transfer". Please tell me what I'm doing wrong with the first two stamps! I found this picture online identified to be R217 to R223. Are these correct?
I finally figured it out!!!!! If it was 217 and 218 there would be a small inscription inside the ribbon at the bottom. How in heck would you see that in their original picture? I've got to give you credit for spotting that - great set of eyes you have there! I've actually got to find a new 217 since my $1 doessn't have the inscription which makes it R240!! Thanks for that and again, GOOD JOB!!
Login to Like
this post
11:35:57pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Harvey
Your picture of the 7 stamps, appear to be inscribed. You need not check the $30 and $50 stamps as they are always inscribed series of 1914, there were only issued in 1914. The $50 value is rare.
If you are interested in learning more about these and how to right and proper ID them, get yourself a Scott Specialized cat. I would suggest getting one maybe 10 years old!
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
13 Aug 2023
07:59:33am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Sorry I criticized your ID, my bad. I had my R217 and R140 reversed (interchanged) for some reason and couldn't find the inscription on what I thought was 217. It's fixed now but it would have stayed wrong but your post fixed it. Stupid mistake but we all make them once in a while!! Thanks again!!
Edit: Just for the heck of it I searched R217 on E-Bay and almost all of them are wrong. I think that no one is trying to trick anyone one purpose, they just don't know what they are doing! I've picked up most of my revenues from my long time dealer who makes very few mistakes. I would be very careful buying anything like that online because a lot of dealers don't seem to know what they are doing!
Login to Like
this post
08:59:40am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Auction house listed this as RE57, misidentified but it really is RE107B!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Do you have a scan of RE 57. Since Scott shows the illustration RE4 for both the RE 57 and the RE 107B both inscribed "Series of 1916" the only way to tell the difference is the size of the serial numbers. I would like to see the difference for future reference.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
10:01:37am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@mbo1142
My example is packed away, if you really want to see I'll unpack it?
But it's not necessary there is other clues, reference cancel, cancel will give you the right and proper way to tell.
Let me know if you really need to see a real RE57?
Please address your response to "1898"!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
Thanks for your response. No need to unpack. I will start checking the post marks.
Thanks again.
Login to Like
this post
10:43:22am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@mbo1142
I don't think showing just an RE57 would really help you to see the difference! I'm thinking a side to side scan which I will provide of what the differences look like, but will have to do it later today, no problem I think it's worth unpacking. Can't do it right now as I have to unbuild a very old roll top desk, and I have no idea how to go about it (I'd like to take a chain saw to it, but my daughter would kill me!).
I will provide a side by side of both later.
1898
Login to Like
this post
02:51:37pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@mbo1142
Getting back to the Topic!
See the attached!
Any comments or questions please address to "1898"
Thick number on top, thin number on bottom.
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
Thanks, got it. Made copies for future reference.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
04:04:34pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@mbo1142
Happy I could help.
1898
Login to Like
this post
07:57:24pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Listed as R257 but it is not, it's really R217 as it's right and proper inscribed!
Comments or question please address to "1898"!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:36:57am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Not even close!
Comments address to "1898"
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:40:22am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Incorrect Over Print!
Comments address to "1898"
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I'm clearly never going to learn anything about US stamps if this thread is anything to go by
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:27:08am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@DaveSheridan
Good morning (my time), I was checking my 2 recent and happened to see your post, thank you!
You are correct you will not learn anything about U.S. stamps here, this is for "Educational Purposes Only".
I'd suggest to learn about U. S, stamps the way I did it was to get a Scott Specialized Cat. for U. S. stamps, then read it, there is a ton of information there just waiting for you, buy one 10 years old, cheaper that way!
Hope this helped
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I am really confused... if it is for "Educational Purposes Only", then I would expect to learn something!
"Not even close" -- Why?
"Wrong overprint" -- What does a real overprint look like?
"Listed as R257 but it is not, it's really R217" -- What is the difference between the two?
What did I learn? -- ZIP! There is simply no education going on.
13 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:41:31am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Suggest you google "misidentified" I think perhaps this is the best way to answer your question about educational.
Hope this helps you, I don't think I could explain what misidentified means better or more clearly to right and proper convey the educational to you, hope you understand.
Many thanks for your response.
Please address responses to "1898"!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I know what misidentified means! The point is, you say an item is "misidentified", and then you don't explain why you believe it is "misidentified". Explaining why you believe it to be misidentified is the educational part of the post. Without your explanation there is no knowledge imparted, it is simply you stating your opinion. i.e, your posting is without context. The interaction you had earlier with mb01142 in this topic concerning RE57 verses RE107B was a very good example of imparting knowledge. I look forward to "learning" more. Cheers.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
01:11:24pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I really can't help you. But I'll try to help a little! See below!
My misidentified correcting images are packed away!
From one of your posting:
The not even close would require operation of reading the mind of the seller, I never learned how to read someone's mind, perhaps you could teach me (would be a good skill when I'm on a date!). Short answer there is not enough information to correctly identify the stamps in question, if I was to make a wild guess I suspect with the clues in the scan it might be 554 but this would be a totally wild guess!
Wrong over print, my stock book for the correct over print is packed, beside in addition it would require right and proper identification. If the reverse side was scanned this could help!
Listed as R257, I correctly identified it as R217!
The Education is letting SOR members of incorrect of stamp! I think this is valuable information!
If you need help on how to ID stamps send me a PM and I'll try to help you, pass on some tips and suggestions to give you some education!
Thank you!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
If I PM you, then I am the only one who benefits from your knowledge. The purpose of the discussion board is to share knowledge with everyone. When you post a statement like "Not even close", "Wrong overprint" or "It's really R217", then I am left to try and read your mind.
"Not Even Close" - What makes you think that it is not a picture of 1917 2 Cent Washington stamps? What should a 1917 2 Cent Washington Stamp look like? What do the 'clues' in the scan mean to you? (maybe I don't have a catalog)
"Wrong Overprint" - If you don't have a picture you could at least try to explain why, in your opinion, the overprint is incorrect... Is the printing too thick, too thin? Is the spacing between 'STOCK' and 'TRANSFER' not right? Is the font not right? How would a scan of the reverse side help with the identification?
"Listed as R257" - Why, in your opinion, is it actually R217? If you don't have a picture, then maybe you could try to explain what "right and proper inscribed" means? (remember, I don't have a catalog).
Please... inquiring minds want to know.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
02:25:04pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Not even close. My cat. is misplaced (packing mess), my wild guess would be R174, but to confirm if someone has the right and proper cat. and would not mind helping out look it up!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
R174 not even close. Totally different images. May be you should look in the catalogue. To show you how easy it would be for you to inform members why something is misidentified, read the following.
The reason it is not R257 is because it is inscribed "Series of 1914" The R257 does not have that inscription.
The RC4 over print is wrong. It should read "Future Delivery" and not "Stock Transfer"
Not long drawn out explanations, just simple answers to why something is misidentified.
I agree with the other members. If you do not want or can't provide information on why something is mis ID, please stop posting such items.
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@mbo1142
Thank you very much! Your simple explanations clear up a lot of the issues that were posted. Cheers.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
04:02:21pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I will continue my educational "Misidentified" when I find them, it's good to know info.
Please if you have question address them "1898".
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
1898 -
I will not address my comments strictly to you, as this discussion board is for ALL to read.
Now - I suggest you STOP saying "my stuff is packed up" and refrain from posting until you UNpack what you refer to so you can SHOW it as an example/examples of what you claim to be "right and proper"(.... a phrase which apparently you made up...)
Until then, you aren't teaching anyone anything constructive.
10 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
08:42:11pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Misidentified, as you can clearly see! This is not a 1914 stamp!
Hope no SOR member buys it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Everyone knows that there are unscrupulous sellers on Ebay like the example shown who attempt to sell common cheap stamps for rediculous prices.
Your postings do nothing to advance the hobby.
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:43:19pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Educational information for SOR members, this advances the hobby!
How do you know it's a unscrupulous seller on Ebay? I think you are likely right, but there's no way for you to know for sure?
Education is power!
Do you have any misidentified stamps to share with us?
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Moderator comment: There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of these posts so not violating any rules. If someone does not like these posts, ignore them. He now has them all in one place so not appearing as flooding and one can skip them.
Collector comment: To make the thread better, it is about delivery of the information to make it more educational so someone who is looking at these to be able to help identify misidentified issues. Sometimes it may be explaining a better understand of a catalog or better yet a variety the seller missed. A focus on missed varieties would be more educational.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:11:49am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be US Scott 301, misidentified, I think (my guess) the right and proper US Scott 319g type #1. Type #1 one of the leaves that's part of the left value tablet in part of the margin, also bottom left curved line is not thicken on the curved portion! Unable to determine watermark orientation!
Reference is scan.
If any SOR member has better information of what you think it is, please share it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
it's not 301, which is a different design from the stamp shown, which is 319 or one of its variants.
Login to Like
this post
09:42:43am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Supplement to my posting Date Time Group (DTG) 15 Aug 2023 09:11:49am
Excuse me, I did not mention anything about the color, my guess the color is right and proper carmine, hence my guess it's might be US Scott 319g type 1
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
A picture is worth a thousand words... this is an actual Scott catalog #301, which is a completely different design than the one being sold in the referenced eBay listing:
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
01:16:53pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Terry
Thanks, I did not have a ready example to show!
What color is your stamp?
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I would say carmine is the color of my copy of Scott #301, and I think that is the only color my Scott catalog specifies. There may be shades or color changes due to light exposure. Trying to determine color from a computer scan is very problematic, due to the program settings on the scanner being used. I would be very cautious about eBay listings offering valuable color varieties, unless they come with a certificate.
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
15 Aug 2023
01:51:52pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
According to the Scott's US specialized 301 exists in carmine, bright carmine, deep carmine and carmine rose. All of these have the same number and the same price ( 50 cents used and $15 mint, $27 if never hinged) so I doubt very much if it is important enough to be a major concern. I have a few slightly different shades but that could be due to fading as much as anything else! The Scott's specialized lists many colour shades for most stamps but usually keeps the numbers the same.
Login to Like
this post
01:52:33pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Terry
My thinking (my opinion only) I would not get a certificate (I assuming you are talking about an expert certificate?) to determine the color on your US Scott 301?
Again thank you very much for showing your US Scott 301!
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:50:58pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be a double transfer, it's nothing more than a dry print, I'm not even sure it's a R5b!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:17:24am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be 567 double transfer and a Los Angeles Precancel, way off base misidentified!
First off it's not 567 which is flat press printed, this stamp is rotary press printed, unknown which Scott number it is!
Second off the condition it's listed as Scott 569!
Third off it's listed as precancel which it is not, muted cancel!
Fourth off seller says it a double transfer, it's not, this is a dry print sometimes referred as a sculpted ink!
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:06:13pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be plate block of Scott 401, not even close. The real 401 plate block would be the one cent green Panama-Pacific Expo Issue of 1914-1915 perf. 10.
IAW plate number, this is should be 409, Imprint IX but of course to make the right and proper ID I'd have the stamp plate block in person to make sure!
1898
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
01:49:32pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Perhaps I should explain how I find these stamps. I'm always searching for cancels. While searching I find these misidentified stamps.
I'm not searching for misidentified stamps just happen on to them searching for (what I call rare cancels)!
This afternoon misidentified, not even close.
Said to be 344 but not. Using the Illus. Number this is really A140, but said to be A139. Now I can't tell you what the right and proper Scott Cat. is, I'd have to have this stamp in my hands on order to properly ID. it.
Hope everybody enjoys this little bit of educational value.
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
18 Aug 2023
03:32:56pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I believe those are Shermack coils and were used in vending machines. I have a couple dozen of them and they make a very interesting mini collection. They're not very expensive and fairly easy to find. There are other types of vending machine coils but these seem to be the most common. Without looking I think my Scott's Specialized has a section on them somewhere near the end of the book.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
04:30:44pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott cat. number 343 Franklin one cent, not even close to being right, the 2 center might be 344 but unknown for sure!
For the right and proper id. for these two stamps the seller should take this one and 2 more similar offering and properly ID. them!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Harvey,
there is a section on private perforations in the Specialized. And the Schermack, Type 3, as shown, is the most common of these.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Concerning the listing for "US STAMP #344 2c carmine Washington 1908...", I believe it could be the 1912 issue watermarked single line USPS Sc #409 Type I - $1.20. If it is offset printed, then perhaps the 1920 issue unwatermarked Sc #532 thru 534A, depending on the Type IV thru Type VI - $10 to $85 (I doubt it could be Type VII - $1,850,00)... Of course the real attraction is the Shermack perforation. The starting price of 99c could be a bargain, depending on the shipping.
Login to Like
this post
09:18:10pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Terry
In regards to my posting reference: 1898 18 Aug 2023 01:49:32pm
You made some mistakes 409 is A140, same for the offsets! You missed 459 type 1 rotary press and it would be another error as its A140
In order to make the right and proper ID., you would need to have the stamp in question in front of you!
But, thank you!
Good luck in your future stamp collecting.
Do you collect the U.S. Franklin/Washington head stamps 1908-1921?
I myself have been collecting these Franklin/Washington head 1908-1921 since 1958 and have ID. thousands of them!
If you reply, please address to "1898"
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:48:10am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott 251, but is not, it's really Scott 250 (IAW Durland's Cat.) if it was Scott 251 the cat, is $1,000, but Scott 250 cat. is $110!
I was searching for plate varieties on the first BEP issues, there are many varieties for all these. This misidentified was the very first stamp that showed up.
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
19 Aug 2023
10:11:09am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
"there is a section on private perforations in the Specialized"
It's called " Vending and Affixing Machine Perforations" in my 2016 Scott's specialized US. This book is as crucial to US collectors as Unitrade is to Canada collectors. Several companies did these special stamps and each seemed to do a few types - The Brinkenhoff Company, The Farwell Company, The Shermack Company, The US Automatic Vending Company and the Attleboro Stamp Company. I wonder if anyone in SOR specializes in these stamps. If you do could you scan some of your collection. I once considered it but Shermack seems to be the only really affordable company and this stuff is not easy to find, and a lot of it is very expensive! If I have extra money to spend on US I'd rather spend it on classic material. I just picked up a gorgeous copy of US #13 from Greg to finish page #1 of my US collection. When the stamp arrives I'll have my friend scan the page for me to post! Greg has some amazing classic material on auction from his doctor's father's US collection. It's worth checking out!!
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898 - I guess I am confused... you stated in your first posting "Said to be 344 but not. Using the Illus. Number this is really A140, but said to be A139.", and now you state that the listing is NOT a Scott type A140. I agreed with your first posting that the item listed is not Scott type A139 and it is, in fact, Scott type A140. What did I get wrong?
Scott type A139 would have the value displayed as (TWO CENTS), while the Scott type A140 would have the value displayed as (2 CENTS 2).
Login to Like
this post
11:07:04am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
See Scott cat. for Vending & Affixing Machine Perforations
Counterfeits are prevalent . . . .
If you have the Scott Cat. read the forward section, I tried scanning it but not very good results (my scanner is 15 years old).
The Schermack Company, Detroit, Michigan, Type 3 is the most common see my previous posting for an example "1898, 18 Aug 2023 01:49:32pm", this type 3 is also the most faked! Unable to determine the stamp in my referenced posting, you need to measure it in order to arrive at the right and proper determination if real or faked
You will find some of the low vales sometimes faked!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
03:53:04pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Terry
Reference your posting 19 Aug 2023 19 Aug 2023 10:53:00am, could you provide more information or a quote please, I've read my posting and do not see what you are talking about. But I do make mistakes sometimes.
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
1898 -
Your first posting, "Said to be 344 but not. Using the Illus. Number this is really A140, but said to be A139. Now I can't tell you what the right and proper Scott Cat. is, I'd have to have this stamp in my hands on order to properly ID. it."
Your second posting, "You made some mistakes 409 is A140, same for the offsets! You missed 459 type 1 rotary press and it would be another error as its A140"
First you say it is Scott type A140 and then you say it is a mistake to consider it a Scott A140?
Login to Like
this post
04:55:42pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Terry
Maybe I'm extra dense today, sir I simply do not see what you are talking about, if you think I made a mistake then I'll accept that (I just do not see my mistake).
The bottom line is the stamp in posting date time group 18 Aug 2023 01:49:32pm is misidentified! That is the main point!
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:17:44pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott 307A122, not even close, it's really 282c/A94 type one
To make it easier for SOR members I've joined Scott Number and the Illus. number together!
I was looking for Scott 307/A122 that Johl described as the best double transfer of the series. Been looking for years and years still no luck, but I never give up!
1898
Login to Like
this post
05:16:08pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be 2 Scott 449's, if this was true what a great deal for someone, but not even close. What are the actual Scott cat. number, unknown as the images are poor!
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:55:30pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be all U.S. Scott #500's, not even close, don't know what the right and proper Scott Cat. numbers are.
Too bad because this would be a good deal if it was real!
Could not enlarge all at one time, but if interested just look this lot up and see the enlarged images.
1898
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:20:06pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott 416, one problem, it's not Scott 416.
Scott Illus. Number (SIN Number) for 416 is SIN A148, but in this case the correct SIN is A140!
Impossible to determine the right and proper ID for this example, as I would need to have this stamp in person!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
My suggestion of putting all these 'unidentified' posts into one thread was scoffed at a little over a week ago.
It's nice to see that common sense has come to the fore.
Thank you.
Londonbus1
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:43:48am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@londonbus1
I'm sorry londonbus1, I cannot locate your suggestion!
In any case, this thread is better organized now and if it really was your suggestion than thank you.
Do you have any take on my latest posting with the said to be 416 SIN A148?
Again thank you for your suggestion, I'm very sorry I could not locate it, was it addressed to @1898.
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
"Hi 1898,
There is one simple reason to add this to your other post so let me explain.
Later today, or tomorrow, you might find another 'misidentified' stamp from the USA or elsewhere. Only those visitors to SOR will read your post. Later in the week, or next week you might find more misidentified stamps and so all over the board there will be threads for misidentified stamps. In any given world, it will make the board look a trifle silly and definitely not looked after. Which will be bad for SOR. Having a list of misidentified stamps in one thread (even a thread for each country is preferable) is far easier to read and looks much more neat and tidy. I would recommend one thread for all countries in the General Philatelic category.
But all this is up to you unless those higher up the ladder are in agreement. I just ask nicely that you think about it, think about the board and it's appearance.
many thanks
Londonbus1"
"@londonbus1
I do not agree, but the higher ups have decided, they all go into one thread, makes no difference where the stamps comes from, could be regular issue, revenue, etc. and etc.
Thank you
1898
"
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
If you want the thread to be quick to load continue you use jpgs and not png files.PNGs are larger for the same image so can be slow to load. SOR does not break them up into page,
Login to Like
this post
04:34:50pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@londonbus1
Ok, I see now, too bad you did not include the Date Time Group (DTG) I don't know what else to call it but DTG.
Your posting must have been in another thread and not the current thread as I could not locate it unless it was deleted!
Again thank you, your were correct and thank you.
So any thoughts about the Scott 416 SIN A148 posting?
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:14:13pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be R245, not even close. The stamp in question is really right and proper R221 inscribed 1914 (see additional scan reference Pick up Point arrows)
There are other clues as it's dated May 17, 1916, now then R245 was first issued in 1917. The transfer rolls for R245 were not even made up in 1916 the reported date!
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:20:52pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I'm surprised with what I'm finding, when I started this thread I did not think I would find so many, there more out there!
Here's another one just like the previous posting.
Hope no one on SOR is looking for a R259 and buys this one, you will be disappointed!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:43:15pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Found another one, said to be Scott 301 SIN A116, but not even close, wrong color, wrong face value. It's really one of the SIN A138's impossible to determine the right and proper ID from a scan!
Educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
12:27:06pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott 502 (which is flat plate printed) not even close, it is really Scott 530 (which is offset press printed), in addition there is a right and proper plate number! It seems to me the dealer could easier check plate number to determine the status of this plate number.
Great educational value!
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:58:13pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott # RE1c, not even close. First off Scott Cat. does not list RE1c! This is either RE15 or RE30 (can't tell if watermark is Single Line 190R or Double line 191R from this scan!)
RE1 is 1/4 cent face value, SIN RE1. The scan is $2.00 face value SIN RE1a!
Great educational value!
1898
Login to Like
this post
04:38:39pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott 499, not even close, it's really an offset issue as you can clearly see!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
You say that you can see it is clearly an offset issue. I cannot tell if it is an offset issue. Could you explain what it is in the picture that you posted the shows it is an offset issue? That would be "education".
As far as I know, the key to separating offset from rotary and flat plate is to realize that the offset stamps were not engraved. This means that the ink lies flat on the paper of the offset stamp. If you hold the stamp at a very sharp angle to a light source, the color on the stamp will almost disappear. Would not one need to have the stamp in hand to determine that?
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
05:50:00pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@d1stamper
I did not show the back of the stamp in question, see scan attached here is the right and proper scan as requested (somehow I forgot to show it).
@Terry
You have a very good point, I forget after 60+ years of working with Washington/Franklin 1908-1921 stamps and after thousands and thousands of identifying them I can spot an offset even on a computer monitor. The stamp in question is Type VI Scott 528A SIN A140. In addition this stamp has something on the trail of the left figure "2" unable to determine from the scan!
I suppose YOU would need to have the stamp in person, but I can tell right off!
Another clue would be the Toga button.
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Thank you for the added clarification. It is very difficult to see from the picture that was posted. However, a close-up of the listing is much easier to identify the stamp Type. If it is Type VI, I see the toga line is complete, but I can't discern the lines in the toga button. The Nose shading is hard to determine. I don't see the line of color in the left '2' as being thin, but there is something definitely "broken" (Type IV also has a thin or broken left '2', but a broken toga line).
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
26 Aug 2023
06:59:43pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Reading all of this makes me wonder how my wife and I managed to ID all these stamps! But somehow we did!!! And there's no way I'm going to recheck them all, my eyes were much better then than they are now!
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I know, Harvey... I agree it boggles the mind. Computer scanners, microscopes and cataract surgery have made a big difference for me.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
08:21:57pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be 499E Booklet Pane, but there is a problem as it's not 499E, as it's not even close, it's really 498 booklet pane. Besides face value is wrong and the color is right and proper wrong color!!!
Misidentified education!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Oh?.. I must disagree. It is close!! it is 498e. The 2017 Scott catalog value for 498e is $4.25 and the value for 499e is $6.75. I would suspect since it is being offered at $1.29 or best offer, that the seller simply typed a '9' instead of a '8' by mistake.
I really fail to see why you are always so indignant when a seller has made a simple error in their listing. If the seller was asking $2,000 then maybe.
If you are wanting to educate, why not post a picture of the correct item to better explain the difference you are trying to communicate. When you say it is the wrong color.. what is the right color? When you say it is the wrong face value.. what is the right face value? If it is the wrong design... what does the correct design look like? With your 60 years experience... how is it that you can tell a flat press printing simply from a picture on a computer?
IMHO your postings do not educate, they are simply exhortations of what you know, or believe to be true. Show collectors how to see these things for themselves. Then education will truly be happening and they will have learned.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:19:34pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
When you say "I really fail to see why you are always so indignant when a seller has made a simple error in their listing. If the seller was asking $2,000 then maybe.", I'm not indignant, just pointing out a fact. You say the seller made a simple error in their listing, perhaps the seller did make a mistake, but I'm unable to read the seller's mind. I have no way of knowing what's in the seller's mind when this lot was listed!
Pointing out the fact that this lot is misidentified or a mistake is educational!
It's really up to the seller to correct the listing if it was a mistake.
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:50:21pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott 499 SIN A140, not even close it's SIN A139 (unable to make determination to what the Scott cat. number is)!
Educational as it's Misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Lord, I thought I had the patience of Job... But I guess not. It is not educational to tell someone "That's the way it is!" The education part comes when you explain why it is the way it is. Show them examples of what is correct and what is not correct. Give them guidance on where to find the correct answers. They say you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink... and I'm worried that this one will die of thirst!
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:56:01pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Terry
Again, calling attention to a misidentified stamp is educational!
It's up to the individual to sort out the rest on their own, not my job!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I rest my case.....
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
03:58:49am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Terry
Think about this! I've found maybe 15 or 20 offsets recently that we said to be Scott # 500, but have not found a real Scott #500 offered as an offset! Why do you think this is so? The sellers offering the offsets as Scott #500's know what they are doing! It's fairly easy to sell offsets as 500's to new collectors. A seller is in business to make money!
The buyer looking for a 500 for his/her collection has to do their own authentication. Buyer be aware!
A collector does not learn anything if I do the work for them, I do as you say, but I think that would be a disservice to the collector.
I point out what is misidentified, and that is educational! Right and proper the way I see it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
So when you go to the stamp club in the sky, your knowledge will go with you. You're certainly not imparting any knowledge in your posts.
12 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I gave up on WF issues (too many needed certs) so started collecting worldwide. I decided I liked stamps. If you think about it, if this series was issued today, Scott would not give a major catalog number to many of the issues (all the plate variations).
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
I have an idea. If a member of SOR wants to buy a Washington/Franklin stamp off of Ebay, then before they buy it, they send you a picture for right and proper identification to make sure they are not being fooled. That way we can use you as our go to expert for such stamps.
Are you willing to take on that task?
8 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
12:20:37pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@mbo1142
No!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
Why?
mbo1142
Login to Like
this post
01:58:44pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott # 501, not even close, this appears to me (image(s) are a little blurred) an Offset Type IV Scott # 530!
Posting that a stamp is misidentified is educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
Educate means to develop the faculties and powers of (a person) by teaching, instruction, or schooling.
Education means the study we do or the knowledge we get from schools and colleges etc.
Educated means someone who has received the knowledge (education).
Educational means something that provides that knowledge (education).
Where is the "something that provides that knowledge", i.e. what makes your statement educational? You have not provided any thing that provides that knowledge other that it is misidentified. Misidentified is not knowledge unless you know why. Either you know why or do not know why and are just guessing or you know why and refuse to spend the time and effort to Educate. (See above definition).
By the way, you still have not answered my or d1stamper's questions.
mbo1142
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
27 Aug 2023
03:13:19pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I think the main thing to get out of all of this is the huge number of misidentified stamps on E-Bay. I have had most of these Washington's and Franklin's for a very long time and since my wife and I IDed them when we both had more patience and better eye sight I'm assuming they were done correctly. But back to e-bay, I only buy from a very small number of dealers I have had good luck with. I could give a list but somehow that doesn't seem right since I'm sure there are others out there as well. None of the dealers I've seen in these posts are ones I buy from, and that's a very good thing!
I wish "the poster" would explain things a bit better so we could learn more from this, but I guess that's just not his way of doing things, If we don't like his way then maybe we should stay away from this set of posts. Again, just my opinion!
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Moderator comment: If you do not care for the thread, just ignore it. Further meta discussion is not needed.
Login to Like
this post
04:56:41pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott #500 type 1a, not even close, it's an offset printed stamp, unable able to determine for sure, but if I was to guess 528b.
Good education!
Note: I've never seen a Scott # 500 misidentified as an offset printed stamp, something to think about why that is!
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:39:11pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott #332 SIN A139, not even close, it's one of the offsets, looks to be Scott #528 Type Va SIN A140, but to be sure and right and proper in person ID really required!
Another educational misidentified find.
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:20:58am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be a Scott # 501, not even close, actual Scott # 530 type IV!
Right and proper education example of a misidentified stamp!
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:14:21pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Said to be Scott # 502, but not even close, this is a block of four, my guess it's one of the right and proper perf. 10 x 10 issues, I can't determine for sure as I would need the stamp in person to properly ID. it!
Excellent educational value as being misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:24:58pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott # 502, problem is it's misidentified so then it is right and proper not even close, it is actually Scott # 530 type 4 or as stated in cat. IV, it even has a plate number listed in the cat. for plate numbers. This plate number is not listed for Scott 502
Another outstanding educational misidentified stamp.
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:48:54am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Misidentified Scott number with a fake certificate!
The certificate is not shown!
Said to be Scott # 489d, in my Scott Cat. there is a 489 listed, but not a 489d, but this one comes with a certificate so it has to be correct, trouble is it's not correct which makes the certificate a fake.
Scott # 489 is a rotary press printed coil 3 cent stamp type 1.
So what is this listed 489d, for proper ID. right and proper ID. would require having the stamp in person. If I was to guess just from the image it appears to be maybe a flat press printed stamp and using the Weiss method (only my guess) 11 x 11 perf. which it could be a 498d which is listed double impression.
Another educational misidentified stamp!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Auctions - Approvals
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
1898
"The certificate is not shown!"
The certificate is shown in the listing.
"Said to be Scott # 489d, in my Scott Cat. there is a 489 listed, but not a 489d,"
My Scott Catalog shows a 498d which is a double impression.
There is a typing error in the listing heading.
Login to Like
this post
10:19:31am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@d1stamper
Many thanks, I wondered why the certificate was not shown when I first saw this very late last night, or maybe I just missed it and it was there.
In any case another educational misidentified!
Again thank you!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Not misidentified, just a typing error. Notified the seller and he thanked me and made the correction in the listing.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:51:17am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott # R13 which it is, but still misidentified as it not even close to be a part perf. Actually it's Scott # R13c, an actual Part perf. example would have 2 part perf. sides, this one has what appears to be a trimmed one side not two sides (correct me if I'm wrong).
I do not have an actual example of my own, and don't recall ever seeing one in this orientation.
If a SOR member has an actual R13b in this orientation I would like to see it?
Another misidentified stamp very educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
I thought all this time you were reaching out to the sellers who are making these mistakes. They are the ones who need the education the most.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
11:37:00am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@smauggie
Not me, I learned my mistake doing that, I notified a seller and for my good deed I was blocked and could not buy from that seller anymore, and the seller has lots of good stuff except the one I found!
So if a SOR member wants to notify seller go ahead, but I won't do it ever again!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
29 Aug 2023
02:06:39pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I have two copies of R13c, one is normal but the other has a side with trimmed perfs very similar to that one. I'm sorry but the only scan I have shows the whole page and the top stamp is a bit shiny because of the mount. I know this doesn't show a partial perfed stamp but it does show another one with trimmed sides.
Login to Like
this post
02:37:00pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Poster
Thank you for showing, very impressive page full of stamps!
I see your you added arrows, I assume they are computer generated and not hand drawn! The top one almost looks hand drawn.
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
29 Aug 2023
03:11:00pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898 Computer generated, but I have to really practice my arrows!!!
I don't collect US revenues in as much detail as you do but I find it is very rare to run into an (a) (imperforate) or (b) (part perforate) and prices really back this up. When they say "part perforate" I assume they mean either horizontally or vertically. If a seller has a stamp with one imperforate side I assume it is a perforated stamp from the top or side of the sheet. Calling it part perforate would be wrong but you see it fairly often. Do I have this right? I assume imperforate on 3 sides just means it is a (b) from the top or bottom of the sheet. Revenues, even though I have a good collection, are not my specialty so I am just learning, I hope!!
Login to Like
this post
04:19:40pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@Poster
Yes you are correct!
Thanks
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:39:06pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Another educational misidentified stamp!
Said to be Scott #409, trouble is it's not even close.
Scott #409 is a flat press printed imperf. stamp.
This stamp is a coil rotary press printed stamp! Unable to determine the right and proper Scott cat. number for this coil.
1898
Login to Like
this post
04:38:52pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott # 544, but this is a coil stamp.
Scott 544 is a sheet stamp, so this lot is not even close to the right and proper ID.
Unknown for sure what Scott number is (need to have more details about it that are lacking!), an in person examination to determine the right and proper ID. would be required.
Great educational value calling your attention to the stamp being misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
30 Aug 2023
05:11:48pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Powers that be - Could we start a Misidentified #2 please? This one is a bit large!
Login to Like
this post
11:24:02am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Another outstanding misidentified stamp, very educational!
Said to be Scott # 502, not even close, actually it is Scott # 530!
1898
Login to Like
this post
04:50:54pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Another misidentified stamp, very educational!
Said to be Scott # 544, trouble is it's not even close. Going by what little information is given it might be 498.
The seller provided 2 scans of the reverse side but both scans are blurred, but there is enough to tell it's a flat plate printed stamp!
The seller does not accept returns (I wonder why)
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:50:50pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be 1908 U.S. 3 cent stamps Scott #333, not even close, all these are offset issued series 1918-1920!
EDUCATIONAL misidentified stamps!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I changed the subject to 1) better describe what is in the thread and 2) to keep all the ebay lot posts into one thread.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
08:28:42am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@angore
Thanks
Just to be clear and honest, not all of these are Ebay listing.
1898
Login to Like
this post
04:56:04pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be U.S. 359 rare used w/cert., not even close! This stamp is a coil stamp and it is not perf. 12 x 12. Unknown what the actual Scott number is, as there is not enough right and proper information provided! In addition no reverse side scan provided!
EDUCATIONAL as it's a misidentified stamp.
If any SOR member is looking to purchase a 359 hope you do not purchase this misidentified stamp!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
08:03:31pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott #387, only trouble is, it's not even close! 387 is a coil stamp, this is a sheet stamp. Cannot ID. this stamp as there is not enough right and proper information.
Misidentified is EDUCATIONAL!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:13:26pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott E1, not even close, E1 is SIN SD1, this stamp is SIN SD2! Cannot properly ID. this stamp as there is not enough right and proper information!
Misidentified is educational as such!
For those who may or may not know the diff. between SD1 & SD2 I've added a second scan, see the Pick up Points (PUPS) arrows. The PUPs point to the major diff. between SD1 and SD2, there are other differences, but small and not easy to show!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:38:19am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Mint with OG, NH, Imperf. no Scott Number provided with SIN A25, not even close as this is a used stamp, appears to have a faded target cancel (My guess), it's not mint! Unable to determine the right and proper Scott cat. number!
Educational misidentified stamp as such.
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
07:00:18pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be R221 ("Scott ID. Inscribed Series 1914", not even close as it's not Inscribed Series 1914, unable to determine the correct Scott number as there isn't any right and proper information!
Educational as such misidentified!
I've added Pick up Point arrow to show where "1914" should be in the second scan!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
08:28:58am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott # 331, not even close!
Scott #331 is SIN A138
This stamp is SIN A155
There is not enough information to determine the right and proper ID.
Another educational stamp that is Misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Do we really need to concentrate on this?
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:18:17pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott #500 Type 1a, trouble it's not even close, this is an offset printed stamp Scott # 528b type VII!
As far as I know this is a newly listed listing!
Educational because it misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
04:22:27pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Said to be Scott 343 & 344, now then SIN for each 343 is SIN A138 and SIN for 344 is SIN A139, not even close, unable to determine the right and proper Scott Cat. numbers as there is not enough information! For what is shown the one cent stamp is SIN A140 and for the 2 cents SIN A140, different designs!
Educational as such misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
It would be interesting to follow up and report if any sold and for how much.
Login to Like
this post
08:15:07am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Yes it would be interesting.
Login to Like
this post
08:37:01am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be Scott # 491, not even close.
Scott # 491 is SIN A140
This pair is SIN A157, unable to determine which Scott number this pair is, need right and proper more information!
Education as such being Misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
09:53:30pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Said to be 10 dollar official, but you can easily see it's a fake, not even close!
Unable to provide Scott Cat. number and SIN as my Cat. is right and proper packed away.
Education as such the stamp in question is misidentified!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I am not an expert, but I believe the faded word "Facsimile" above the word STATE would make it so.
Scott #O70
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:38:05am
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
(1)
Right you are!
Instead of fake I should have used "Facsimile".
Fake or facsimile, still not worth the asking price (just my way of thinking).
Still misidentified, very educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
02:36:22pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
Said to be 491, not even close, see the scan!
Educational as such right and proper misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
Do you ever report the misidentified stamps to ebay? If so, does ebay ever do anything?
Thanks,
Josh
Login to Like
this post
05:30:10pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@joshtanski
No.
1898
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
07 Sep 2023
05:36:01pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
I really don't think E-Bay would care too much. I deal with an antique site called Ruby Lane that is a much smaller site and encourages people to report mistakes. I've seen a few, report them to the sellers and always get thanked for it. E-Bay is way too big to handles complaints and many of the sellers are crooks who don't want to be told either!!
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@1898
I’m more interested if you ever find anything really valuable misidentified as a common variety? I expect that is more likely in a collection, as I have experienced that, but surely with the amount of auctions you go through and the apparent “infinite” free time you have to devote to this enterprise, you must have come across some nice things at a discount price. Any thing you’d like to share?
Login to Like
this post
07:53:34pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@HungaryForStamps
Hi, yes I do find some once in a while. I used to post in SOR what I found, but never received much encouragement from SOR members. My posting were titled "Unrecognized".
My posting for misidentified, these are just what I find, I check for certain items in the "newly listed". I don't spend my time, maybe 30 minutes a day total.
I found one last night but did not post it. It's a revenue stamp but with a rare cancel. What I mean rare is difficult to find, not encountered very often. As far as I know it's still on Ebay I can't remember the cat. number, it's the $30.00 series of 1914 with "F. D." future delivery provisional July 1918 New Orleans cancel. This cancel was only used during July 1918!
If you have more question(s) ask soon as in the morning I moving back to Nevada, about 1,400 miles.
Thank you
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
What a crazy string of posts. Honestly, I didn't learn much of anything from the examples posted. However, I did learn that MBO1182 has some finely tuned eyesight.
I have purchased several mis-identified stamps on Ebay in the last year. All sellers gave me refunds, and most apologized with a TY. I think notifying the seller is a good idea. No seller is perfect, and likely would appreciate the heads up. Didn't someone in this thread suggest that is the education that would be provided?
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
"Didn't someone in this thread suggest that is the education that would be provided?"
This was suggested a couple of times by different people.....he refused.
I have since ignored his feeble Columbo impressions.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
11 Sep 2023
11:32:44pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
@moderator
Please consider closing this thread. It is taking too long to load.
Roy
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings
This thread has been split, moving 3 posts onto a new Thread titled:"Misidentified or improperly described ebay listings (part 2)"
Login to Like
this post