Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be E1, not even close, unable to determine correct Scott cat. number, no enough right and proper ID. information.
Another as such stamp misidentified.
1898
Login to Like
this post
@Said to be 331 & 332, the 332 might be correct but the 331 misidentified. Unable to determine the right and proper ID for the 3 Cent stamp!
Educational as such misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
06:33:06pm
"Said to be E1, not even close, unable to determine correct Scott cat. number, no enough right and proper ID. information."
Yes, it's a mistake. But there IS sufficient information to properly identify it by Scott.
Not E1 because the "Secures delivery ..." panel includes the curved "Post Office" line. E1 says "at a Special Delivery Office".
Not E4 or E5 (same design), unwatermarked and wmk 191 because those both include a faint horizontal line below "TEN CENTS" (see pic below)
Not E3 because it's not orange.
It's E2 !
Design of E4 and E5 (lines below TEN CENTS)
E4 is unwatermarked, E5 is wmk 191
Roy
20 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@d1stamper
So was it misidentified or not?
Login to Like
this post
Said to be Scott 502, not even close. Really 530 offset issue.
Another educational stamp that is misidentified!
Login to Like
this post
Said to be Scott R219, not even close, unknown which Scott number this one is.
Special educational note Scott R219 would be inscribed "SERIES 1914" in the ribbons or scrolls on each side of "3 DOLLARS".
Another educational stamp that was misidentified!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Said to be Scott E4, not even close!
Misidentified stamp!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Said to be R220, not even close!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Said to be Scott 220, not even close!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Does any SOR member have an example of a foreign stamp that is "Said to be a U.S.A. Postage stamp or Revenue Stamp"?
Please show it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
I'm surprised, I thought there would be some!
I had no idea.
1898
Login to Like
this post
(1)
Said to be R174, not even close!
Misidentified as such!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Said to be 1916 issued, but not even close.
1898
Login to Like
this post
"Not even close"......comment of no value if you aren't adding the "why".
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Said to be R217-R221 not even close, not inscribed per the cat. right and proper misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Would be far more educational if you stated what should be the correct description.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@anglobob
Without the stamps in front of me for a right and proper examination, I could only GUESS what the correct description is, and that would not be very educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
It's ALREADY not very educational....
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@musicman
I did not say it was educational, I said it was MISIDENTIFIED!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Can't you just tell us why? Then we may actually be able to, you know, learn something.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
The why is as stated in my posting (not inscribed as per cat.)!
1898
Login to Like
this post
Hi @1898
I got your point:
1. You indicate to us that it is wrongly identified
2. For us to learn something, it is more difficult to search by ourselves, but I am sure we will be left with more information than if you had given us the answer.
I tried to follow your idea, but I am not at all familiar with the notation of the Scott catalog.
Why is the stamp "Liberty -R21" misidentified as Scott R 217?
It is written "....19...." the rest from "Series 1914" or “Series 1940” I can't see but, I assume it is there.
1917-33 Scott R240 is without "Series 1914"
1928-29 (??) Scott R257 is without "Series 1914"
1940 Scott R276 with "Series 1940"
I tried (I'm not familiar) in the specialized Scott catalog/2006ed. to identify the differences in perforations or wmk and I'm not sure that I succeeded because these numbers only have the printing method "engr"
R 217 - wmk.190, perf.10 - ??
R240 - wmk.191R , perf.11 - ??
R257 - without wmk. perf 10 - ??
R276 - wmk.191R, perf 11 - ??
I suspect (if I understood Scott's notation correctly) that the stamps have perf.11 (R276) and therefore cannot be R217 (perf.10).
I don't have this stamp so I can know what the number of teeth is at perf. 10 or 11, but I suspect you're right.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Moderators....Please close this thread. It's very irritating (IMO). If I'm alone in this, just ignore my request.
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I also read this thread and it didn't upset me at all...until now I ignored it.
Today I had a little time and I tried to check the correctness of those declared as misidentified.
I'm waiting for @1898's answer and after that, do what you want.
Login to Like
this post
The reason they are not the series of 1914 is that they are not inscribed 1914.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I only referred to the $1 stamp, R217.
It seems to me that I see "19" which can be part of "Series 1914 or 1940"... and then only perforation 11 can remain a reason for not being R217
Did you read my post? ...or is my translation incomprehensible again?
Login to Like
this post
@gerom
So very sorry, I did not know there was a timeline for an answer from me, again so very sorry!
The Inscribed "SERIES 1914" You are asking about, perhaps this image will show you where it's supposed to be but is missing.
I hope you understand it now, I was thinking with your image you and everyone else could clearly see "SERIES 1914", I was wrong!
Is there any other question you or anyone else has?
The fact that a stamp is misidentified is educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@bigcreekdad
Why is this so very irritating?
I found stamps on line that are misidentified and posted it, surely you and others can see this is educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
@1898
I understand now, thank you.
Can you confirm if the wmk and perf for the other types of $1 are correct?
I am familiar with Michel where next to the image of the stamp I have all the information (printing method, perf, wmk, sheet format) and I don't have to go back to the catalog to find out some information - like in Scott.
Login to Like
this post
Perhaps the following may help. Not the best stamps or image, but:
The first stamp is Scott #R217 Note "Series 1914" in the scrolls bottom left and right
The second stamps is Scott #R240 without "Series 1914" in the scrolls
The third stamp is Scott #R276 with "Series 1940" across the stamp just over the head.
The only difference between R240 and R257 is the perf. R240 is perf 11 and R257 is perf 10
Do not worry about the WM they are all the same.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@mbo1142
Thank you...with the perforations, it seems that I got it right.
However, I understood from the catalog that R257 is without wmk.
The 1928-29 stamp issues do not have wmk.
I assumed that R257 also fits.
Am I wrong?
Login to Like
this post
@gerom
I think you may be missing something when reading the cat. If you have the Scott Catalogue, start with the R257 and go backwards toward R228 (Year 1917) where it says the WM is 191R. Unless between R257 and R228 it indicates Unwmk, which it does not, then everything after R228 is WM until something tells you different WM or Unwmk. I am not sure where you got that that the 1928-29 issues do not have a WM.
I may be wrong, if I am I apologize.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@gerom
I assume you are up to speed on everything, if I'm wrong, let me know. It can take me sometime to respond as one of my renters thrashed my house and I'm putting everything back into rent able condition. I'm 76 and can work all day, but very slow, sometimes very very slow!
I've never seen a Michel cat., sounds like a good cat. The Scott takes time and I have to rout out everything, very time consuming, but that's what I've been using since 1958.
1898
Login to Like
this post
Said to be Scott 491, not even close. The stamp in question is of the type 3. 491 is type 2 See PUPs Arrows and compare with Scott Cat. inadequate images.
At this time I'm unable to determine the right and proper Scott cat. number! Later when all my identification equipment arrives I could determine the correct Scott cat. number. I do not make guesses, making a guess is not helpful to new collectors!
The pictures in the Scott cat. for the orientations between type 2 and type 3 I find misleading. Any serious student of the Washing/Franklin head stamps 1908-1921 should consult one of the on lines sources!
I use what I think is the best source (just my opinion only) the Armstrong book.
Special Note: Armstrong says during the difficult War years because the experienced personnel were in the military, quality control lacked a great deal, type 3 stamps could look like type 2! I've never seen or read this any where else!
I've added arrows to help out!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
@mbo1142, now I understand, thank you.
@1898, I also work on the thermal insulation for the winter of an old house (temperatures usually drop below 0 Celsius) and in the evening - if I'm not too tired - I return to philately.
The time difference (7 hours) also delays me from answering very quickly, but there is also the next day.
Login to Like
this post
Does any SOR member have trouble trying to ID. 491's?
Suggest you obtain the Martin Armstrong book, Wash/Frank Heads 1908-1921!
1898
Login to Like
this post
"Special Note: Armstrong says during the difficult War years because the experienced personnel were in the military, quality control lacked a great deal, type 3 stamps could look like type 2! I've never seen or read this any where else!"
1898,
You have not read that anywhere else because quality control was not the primary reason. At the turn of the century in the US, businesses were demanding a faster way to adhere stamps to business mail. This was the driving reason behind the development of coil stamps and the USPOD was scrambling to support the growing popularity of automatic affixing machines being pressed into service at more and more US companies. This was the reason that the USPOD scrambled to even produce coils, first by trying to hobble together flat plate coils until they finally got it right by developing rotary press coils.
Quality control (QC) has never been considered paramount in the production of US stamps by the USPOD or the printing companies that supported them. Consider, for example, the total lack of QC with the early US revenue stamps. They sent them out the door perforated, part perforated and imperforated because they put revenue generation from the stamp sales higher than quality control. The early coil stamps were the same situation.
Even the much-admired work of the Bank Note companies engraving of the early US stamps had no were near the level of quality control that they applied to their other main product, currency. Postage stamps were just postage stamps; they are small and most importantly they are only used once. Yes, the USPOD wanted to prevent re-use and counterfeiting but compared to the printing of currency, quality control has never been a significant concern. This is also reflected in the production of stamps today by the USPS. Stamp print quality is not “job one” and this can be seen on the amount of color shift that is ‘allowed’ to go out the door. They are just stamps.
RE: your ‘educational’ threads.
I agree with the other folks here that your threads have limited educational value. When you do add extra information, like the arrows and Armstrong reference above, it is presented as factual instead of your opinion. (I am unsure why it took you so long to add arrows, you were adding arrows to your images back in 2018 over in the SCF forum before you got banned for creating too much drama there.)
But more importantly, you seem to be tone deaf to the fact that your posts result in frustration for many people in this community. This frustration not only adds unneeded drama, but it also prevents some people from even replying to your threads.
If education is truly your purpose, I suggest that listen to the frustrated folks in this forum. And consider adding to your listing screen shots the name of the seller since this is probably one of the most important aspects of helping people better informed buying decisions. Making informed buying decisions is not only about ‘what’ to buy, it is also about ‘who’ to buy from. The internet has really exasperated this issue since venues like eBay have done a good job selling the idea that it is ‘ok’ to buy stamps without having the stamp in hand from an unknow person halfway around the world. This is one of the reasons why people support Stamporama, they get to know who they are doing transactions with.
The above is my opinion and I am just trying to help you.
Don
16 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"in the SCF forum before you got banned for creating too much drama there".
Is there a process where someone could be banned from Stamporama?
Login to Like
this post
Our Code of Conduct states:
"C16. Failure of a member to abide by StampoRama codes, rules, and directives may subject the member to sanctions including being issued a warning, muted (unable to post in the Discussion Board), suspended from the sales platforms, or expulsion from StampoRama. Except for permament muting or suspension and expulsion, which is acted on by the Management Team, Moderators and Auctioneers have discretion as to how long a temporary adversarial action will last. Sanctioned members are notified through private message and/or email. Auctioneers and Moderators have discretion to act independently within their own spheres. "
So yes, this is possible and has happened in the past.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@1898...
Yet you claim in a previous posting that -
"I found stamps on line that are misidentified and posted it, surely you and others can see this is educational!"
And no, we do not!
Thanks.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
07:16:05pm
I have been trying to stay out of this because of previous disagreements, but I'm very much afraid I agree with Terry. I would very much like to know why the stamps are improperly described. That would be much more educational, at least to me.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
@1898
I found 2 similar threads on a German site (forgeries/misidentified stamps on "ebay" and "delcampe")
The explanations are brief (like those of @1898), the difference being that the seller is also mentioned and the community of collectors on this site reports this forgeries/misidentified stamps.
Many times when I access the link mentioned on the website, I find the product withdrawn from sale.
There are cases when the "misidentified" decision is contradicted by another member of the site and additional explanations appear.
There are many cases when I don't understand the decision of missidentified (it's certainly frustrating for me as well), but if I'm interested in finding out, I look for it myself in the catalog/net or ask for explanations.
It is frustrating that some collectors at a simple glance (not necessarily at an image with a good resolution) give the decision: forgery or missidentified, but this resulted in many hours of study and many stamps bought and studied before their eyes.
I was fortunate to inherit many stamps "French type Groupe colonies" and after several months of research on the net (I was a beginner collector without specialized catalogs or books) I reached a good level of expertise (less overprints on them)
I have seen on other sites many collectors who are in a hurry to complete their albums (who have specialized works in their library that I only dream about) and do not have the time and patience to correctly identify what they have in their collection.
@1898 - through your posts you raise a question/an impulse to verify the correct identification of what they have in the collection.
All they have to do is, search or ask.
If I had these US stamps in my collection (so I could check them with my own eyes), I think you would have had many questions from me.
In my opinion, it is necessary to mention the name of the seller and the community of this site to report these misidentified stamps.
Login to Like
this post
@1898
Finding misidentied stamps on eBay is liike taking coal to Newcastle. You refuse to identify sellers who misidentify and/or misrepresent stamps because it is a conflict of interest for you, lest the seller ban you from their auctions. Your motives are niether pure nor noble. Your habit is also to simply assert that a stamp is misidentified without bothering to explain why it is misidentified and what the stamp in question should look like, which is not helpful at all, yet you insist with most of your posts that they are somehow educational when you can''t be bothered to do any actual education.
It is annoying to be lied to but it is incredibly self-defeating to lie to yourself that what you have been doing is any kind of service to the community or any form of actual education. For your own benefit, if you can't be honest with us, at least be honest with yourself.
The sad thing is is that I have seen you provide information and education and I know you are capable of it if you put in the effort.
12 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Original thread too large so slow loading. If you do not like the content, just ignore.
Login to Like
this post
08:19:21pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
(1)
Said to be E1, not even close, unable to determine correct Scott cat. number, no enough right and proper ID. information.
Another as such stamp misidentified.
1898
Login to Like
this post
08:39:28pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@Said to be 331 & 332, the 332 might be correct but the 331 misidentified. Unable to determine the right and proper ID for the 3 Cent stamp!
Educational as such misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
11 Sep 2023
06:33:06pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
"Said to be E1, not even close, unable to determine correct Scott cat. number, no enough right and proper ID. information."
Yes, it's a mistake. But there IS sufficient information to properly identify it by Scott.
Not E1 because the "Secures delivery ..." panel includes the curved "Post Office" line. E1 says "at a Special Delivery Office".
Not E4 or E5 (same design), unwatermarked and wmk 191 because those both include a faint horizontal line below "TEN CENTS" (see pic below)
Not E3 because it's not orange.
It's E2 !
Design of E4 and E5 (lines below TEN CENTS)
E4 is unwatermarked, E5 is wmk 191
Roy
20 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:18:02pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@d1stamper
So was it misidentified or not?
Login to Like
this post
10:36:40pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Said to be Scott 502, not even close. Really 530 offset issue.
Another educational stamp that is misidentified!
Login to Like
this post
02:08:47am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Said to be Scott R219, not even close, unknown which Scott number this one is.
Special educational note Scott R219 would be inscribed "SERIES 1914" in the ribbons or scrolls on each side of "3 DOLLARS".
Another educational stamp that was misidentified!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
09:45:56pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Said to be Scott E4, not even close!
Misidentified stamp!
1898
Login to Like
this post
10:23:48pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Said to be R220, not even close!
1898
Login to Like
this post
11:06:03pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Said to be Scott 220, not even close!
1898
Login to Like
this post
01:15:00am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Does any SOR member have an example of a foreign stamp that is "Said to be a U.S.A. Postage stamp or Revenue Stamp"?
Please show it!
1898
Login to Like
this post
11:41:42pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
I'm surprised, I thought there would be some!
I had no idea.
1898
Login to Like
this post
01:08:50am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
(1)
Said to be R174, not even close!
Misidentified as such!
1898
Login to Like
this post
11:08:02pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Said to be 1916 issued, but not even close.
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
"Not even close"......comment of no value if you aren't adding the "why".
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:42:10am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Said to be R217-R221 not even close, not inscribed per the cat. right and proper misidentified!
1898
Login to Like
this post
12:42:49pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Would be far more educational if you stated what should be the correct description.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
04:59:59pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@anglobob
Without the stamps in front of me for a right and proper examination, I could only GUESS what the correct description is, and that would not be very educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
It's ALREADY not very educational....
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:26:30pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@musicman
I did not say it was educational, I said it was MISIDENTIFIED!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Can't you just tell us why? Then we may actually be able to, you know, learn something.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
12:14:01am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
The why is as stated in my posting (not inscribed as per cat.)!
1898
Login to Like
this post
05:05:21am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Hi @1898
I got your point:
1. You indicate to us that it is wrongly identified
2. For us to learn something, it is more difficult to search by ourselves, but I am sure we will be left with more information than if you had given us the answer.
I tried to follow your idea, but I am not at all familiar with the notation of the Scott catalog.
Why is the stamp "Liberty -R21" misidentified as Scott R 217?
It is written "....19...." the rest from "Series 1914" or “Series 1940” I can't see but, I assume it is there.
1917-33 Scott R240 is without "Series 1914"
1928-29 (??) Scott R257 is without "Series 1914"
1940 Scott R276 with "Series 1940"
I tried (I'm not familiar) in the specialized Scott catalog/2006ed. to identify the differences in perforations or wmk and I'm not sure that I succeeded because these numbers only have the printing method "engr"
R 217 - wmk.190, perf.10 - ??
R240 - wmk.191R , perf.11 - ??
R257 - without wmk. perf 10 - ??
R276 - wmk.191R, perf 11 - ??
I suspect (if I understood Scott's notation correctly) that the stamps have perf.11 (R276) and therefore cannot be R217 (perf.10).
I don't have this stamp so I can know what the number of teeth is at perf. 10 or 11, but I suspect you're right.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Moderators....Please close this thread. It's very irritating (IMO). If I'm alone in this, just ignore my request.
7 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
11:52:32am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
I also read this thread and it didn't upset me at all...until now I ignored it.
Today I had a little time and I tried to check the correctness of those declared as misidentified.
I'm waiting for @1898's answer and after that, do what you want.
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
The reason they are not the series of 1914 is that they are not inscribed 1914.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
12:49:03pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
I only referred to the $1 stamp, R217.
It seems to me that I see "19" which can be part of "Series 1914 or 1940"... and then only perforation 11 can remain a reason for not being R217
Did you read my post? ...or is my translation incomprehensible again?
Login to Like
this post
01:05:10pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@gerom
So very sorry, I did not know there was a timeline for an answer from me, again so very sorry!
The Inscribed "SERIES 1914" You are asking about, perhaps this image will show you where it's supposed to be but is missing.
I hope you understand it now, I was thinking with your image you and everyone else could clearly see "SERIES 1914", I was wrong!
Is there any other question you or anyone else has?
The fact that a stamp is misidentified is educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
01:08:12pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@bigcreekdad
Why is this so very irritating?
I found stamps on line that are misidentified and posted it, surely you and others can see this is educational!
1898
Login to Like
this post
01:22:35pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@1898
I understand now, thank you.
Can you confirm if the wmk and perf for the other types of $1 are correct?
I am familiar with Michel where next to the image of the stamp I have all the information (printing method, perf, wmk, sheet format) and I don't have to go back to the catalog to find out some information - like in Scott.
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Perhaps the following may help. Not the best stamps or image, but:
The first stamp is Scott #R217 Note "Series 1914" in the scrolls bottom left and right
The second stamps is Scott #R240 without "Series 1914" in the scrolls
The third stamp is Scott #R276 with "Series 1940" across the stamp just over the head.
The only difference between R240 and R257 is the perf. R240 is perf 11 and R257 is perf 10
Do not worry about the WM they are all the same.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
02:46:30pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@mbo1142
Thank you...with the perforations, it seems that I got it right.
However, I understood from the catalog that R257 is without wmk.
The 1928-29 stamp issues do not have wmk.
I assumed that R257 also fits.
Am I wrong?
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@gerom
I think you may be missing something when reading the cat. If you have the Scott Catalogue, start with the R257 and go backwards toward R228 (Year 1917) where it says the WM is 191R. Unless between R257 and R228 it indicates Unwmk, which it does not, then everything after R228 is WM until something tells you different WM or Unwmk. I am not sure where you got that that the 1928-29 issues do not have a WM.
I may be wrong, if I am I apologize.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
11:32:41pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@gerom
I assume you are up to speed on everything, if I'm wrong, let me know. It can take me sometime to respond as one of my renters thrashed my house and I'm putting everything back into rent able condition. I'm 76 and can work all day, but very slow, sometimes very very slow!
I've never seen a Michel cat., sounds like a good cat. The Scott takes time and I have to rout out everything, very time consuming, but that's what I've been using since 1958.
1898
Login to Like
this post
12:25:37am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Said to be Scott 491, not even close. The stamp in question is of the type 3. 491 is type 2 See PUPs Arrows and compare with Scott Cat. inadequate images.
At this time I'm unable to determine the right and proper Scott cat. number! Later when all my identification equipment arrives I could determine the correct Scott cat. number. I do not make guesses, making a guess is not helpful to new collectors!
The pictures in the Scott cat. for the orientations between type 2 and type 3 I find misleading. Any serious student of the Washing/Franklin head stamps 1908-1921 should consult one of the on lines sources!
I use what I think is the best source (just my opinion only) the Armstrong book.
Special Note: Armstrong says during the difficult War years because the experienced personnel were in the military, quality control lacked a great deal, type 3 stamps could look like type 2! I've never seen or read this any where else!
I've added arrows to help out!
1898
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
02:02:17am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@mbo1142, now I understand, thank you.
@1898, I also work on the thermal insulation for the winter of an old house (temperatures usually drop below 0 Celsius) and in the evening - if I'm not too tired - I return to philately.
The time difference (7 hours) also delays me from answering very quickly, but there is also the next day.
Login to Like
this post
11:25:03pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Does any SOR member have trouble trying to ID. 491's?
Suggest you obtain the Martin Armstrong book, Wash/Frank Heads 1908-1921!
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
"Special Note: Armstrong says during the difficult War years because the experienced personnel were in the military, quality control lacked a great deal, type 3 stamps could look like type 2! I've never seen or read this any where else!"
1898,
You have not read that anywhere else because quality control was not the primary reason. At the turn of the century in the US, businesses were demanding a faster way to adhere stamps to business mail. This was the driving reason behind the development of coil stamps and the USPOD was scrambling to support the growing popularity of automatic affixing machines being pressed into service at more and more US companies. This was the reason that the USPOD scrambled to even produce coils, first by trying to hobble together flat plate coils until they finally got it right by developing rotary press coils.
Quality control (QC) has never been considered paramount in the production of US stamps by the USPOD or the printing companies that supported them. Consider, for example, the total lack of QC with the early US revenue stamps. They sent them out the door perforated, part perforated and imperforated because they put revenue generation from the stamp sales higher than quality control. The early coil stamps were the same situation.
Even the much-admired work of the Bank Note companies engraving of the early US stamps had no were near the level of quality control that they applied to their other main product, currency. Postage stamps were just postage stamps; they are small and most importantly they are only used once. Yes, the USPOD wanted to prevent re-use and counterfeiting but compared to the printing of currency, quality control has never been a significant concern. This is also reflected in the production of stamps today by the USPS. Stamp print quality is not “job one” and this can be seen on the amount of color shift that is ‘allowed’ to go out the door. They are just stamps.
RE: your ‘educational’ threads.
I agree with the other folks here that your threads have limited educational value. When you do add extra information, like the arrows and Armstrong reference above, it is presented as factual instead of your opinion. (I am unsure why it took you so long to add arrows, you were adding arrows to your images back in 2018 over in the SCF forum before you got banned for creating too much drama there.)
But more importantly, you seem to be tone deaf to the fact that your posts result in frustration for many people in this community. This frustration not only adds unneeded drama, but it also prevents some people from even replying to your threads.
If education is truly your purpose, I suggest that listen to the frustrated folks in this forum. And consider adding to your listing screen shots the name of the seller since this is probably one of the most important aspects of helping people better informed buying decisions. Making informed buying decisions is not only about ‘what’ to buy, it is also about ‘who’ to buy from. The internet has really exasperated this issue since venues like eBay have done a good job selling the idea that it is ‘ok’ to buy stamps without having the stamp in hand from an unknow person halfway around the world. This is one of the reasons why people support Stamporama, they get to know who they are doing transactions with.
The above is my opinion and I am just trying to help you.
Don
16 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
"in the SCF forum before you got banned for creating too much drama there".
Is there a process where someone could be banned from Stamporama?
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
Our Code of Conduct states:
"C16. Failure of a member to abide by StampoRama codes, rules, and directives may subject the member to sanctions including being issued a warning, muted (unable to post in the Discussion Board), suspended from the sales platforms, or expulsion from StampoRama. Except for permament muting or suspension and expulsion, which is acted on by the Management Team, Moderators and Auctioneers have discretion as to how long a temporary adversarial action will last. Sanctioned members are notified through private message and/or email. Auctioneers and Moderators have discretion to act independently within their own spheres. "
So yes, this is possible and has happened in the past.
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@1898...
Yet you claim in a previous posting that -
"I found stamps on line that are misidentified and posted it, surely you and others can see this is educational!"
And no, we do not!
Thanks.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
30 Sep 2023
07:16:05pm
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
I have been trying to stay out of this because of previous disagreements, but I'm very much afraid I agree with Terry. I would very much like to know why the stamps are improperly described. That would be much more educational, at least to me.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
02:58:58am
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@1898
I found 2 similar threads on a German site (forgeries/misidentified stamps on "ebay" and "delcampe")
The explanations are brief (like those of @1898), the difference being that the seller is also mentioned and the community of collectors on this site reports this forgeries/misidentified stamps.
Many times when I access the link mentioned on the website, I find the product withdrawn from sale.
There are cases when the "misidentified" decision is contradicted by another member of the site and additional explanations appear.
There are many cases when I don't understand the decision of missidentified (it's certainly frustrating for me as well), but if I'm interested in finding out, I look for it myself in the catalog/net or ask for explanations.
It is frustrating that some collectors at a simple glance (not necessarily at an image with a good resolution) give the decision: forgery or missidentified, but this resulted in many hours of study and many stamps bought and studied before their eyes.
I was fortunate to inherit many stamps "French type Groupe colonies" and after several months of research on the net (I was a beginner collector without specialized catalogs or books) I reached a good level of expertise (less overprints on them)
I have seen on other sites many collectors who are in a hurry to complete their albums (who have specialized works in their library that I only dream about) and do not have the time and patience to correctly identify what they have in their collection.
@1898 - through your posts you raise a question/an impulse to verify the correct identification of what they have in the collection.
All they have to do is, search or ask.
If I had these US stamps in my collection (so I could check them with my own eyes), I think you would have had many questions from me.
In my opinion, it is necessary to mention the name of the seller and the community of this site to report these misidentified stamps.
Login to Like
this post
re: Misidentified or improperly described listings (part 2)
@1898
Finding misidentied stamps on eBay is liike taking coal to Newcastle. You refuse to identify sellers who misidentify and/or misrepresent stamps because it is a conflict of interest for you, lest the seller ban you from their auctions. Your motives are niether pure nor noble. Your habit is also to simply assert that a stamp is misidentified without bothering to explain why it is misidentified and what the stamp in question should look like, which is not helpful at all, yet you insist with most of your posts that they are somehow educational when you can''t be bothered to do any actual education.
It is annoying to be lied to but it is incredibly self-defeating to lie to yourself that what you have been doing is any kind of service to the community or any form of actual education. For your own benefit, if you can't be honest with us, at least be honest with yourself.
The sad thing is is that I have seen you provide information and education and I know you are capable of it if you put in the effort.
12 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.