Visually it doesn't look a repair to me (from the picture). So if it is, it is reasonably well done. Based on some ink flow along the "line", I would guess it was a natural pre-print paper wrinkle/crease. There appears to be another "crease" running at an angle to it near the bottom left corner?
You can test for repairs by also doing the below. Remember, you are not actually looking for a tear/crease, but a repair. Which means you want to look at the area surrounding the crease (and NOT the actual crease). The crease will almost always show using the below methods, but the repair zone along the length of the crease...
-- hold it up to a bright light and look through the backside, a repair will often show thickness along the length of the crease/tear
-- soak in watermark fluid (as if looking for a tear), the repair "zone" may appear off-color
-- hit the backside with filtered UV light, the repair zone will may show a difference in absorption/photoluminescence
Of course, some repairs will "fall apart" when soaked in water (but then you lose the repair job!).
Thanks for taking a look, Kim.
You're right about that crease near the bottom left corner. That appears to be a crease, the type I'm all too familiar with.
I'm not familiar with pre-print paper wrinkles/creases. If I've seen one, I didn't recognize it as such.
When I look at this from the back toward a bright light, the vertical crease/repair shows as a very straight and very narrow dark line, but the diagonal crease at the lower corner shows a similar dark line. Something I failed to mention before: The line from the back appears to be raised. Also, I just noticed that the crease/repair appears to stop about a mm above the bottom of the stamp.
I'm out of watermark fluid. I need to order some to try that second test.
Y'know, this stamp ought to be worth a premium. It has a stain, short perfs, two thinned areas, paper adhesions, two hinge remnants, a probable crease and a possible repair. About the only thing missing is regumming.
I have another Azores stamp that definitely has a repaired tear. It may or may not have come from the same Portuguese colonies collection. (I bought two collections back in the '80s.) The repair on this other stamp (Scott 146) is more noticeable from the front of the stamp.
Just for the Halibut, does anyone have the Scott listing for this fishy stamp ?
Interesting stamp. I feel the top right could be re perforated. The edge look different to other edges
CDJ, if you're asking for the Scott catalog number, it is 77. If that's not what you're asking, I need some help in understanding your question.
gakshat, reperforation is another area I know little about. It's not something I'm accustomed to noticing. What are you seeing that suggests to you the top right-hand corner may have been reperfed? Are you talking about just 1-2 perfs or more? I'd like to get a better understanding of how to identify reperfing.
" ... I need some help in understanding your question. ...."
Scott lists a comparative value which usually has little relationship to the real world.
I'm away from home and do not have my catalogs in my hip pocket, so I wondered what the listing was, or is, to excite the attention.
Charlie
Here are the scans for the other top three values from this set. They look like comb to me and I see why there's a question about the upper right-hand corner of the #77 stamp.
Thanks nl947 for explaining.. That's exactly what I meant.. I don't know much about the stamp but 1 of 4 edge being different suggested re perforation. Your images also further add weight to that suspicion.
The com perforated stamps are identical on all sides as seen from bl947 image.
Thank you gakshat and Nelson for bringing this issue to my attention and helping me understand how to identify the reperforation. I appreciate the help!
Very interesting, but I still wonder what Scott lists it at. Genuine examples must be significant to generate all the attention and effort to repair it.
The Scott 2016 value for an unused copy is $225.
Curious. Neither Michel or Afinsa provides no detail about the perforation type. Just 14. For most stamps/series there's a note whether line or comb
-k-
As I prepare more stamps for sale, I'm rediscovering some (more than I would like!) faulty stamps that have been lurking in my albums for decades. I'm still pretty much a novice with many aspects of the hobby despite the passage of so many years.
When I first looked at the back of this stamp a few days ago, my first reaction was: "What a mess!" My second reaction was: "ah, a bad crease." Then I quickly realized the crease running from top to bottom near the edge is too perfect and barely shows on the face of the stamp. My next reaction was: "maybe a repair!"
On the face of the stamp, I can barely see a line in the top perf where this crease/repair would be. The crease/repair also shows up as a faint white line through the arm near the left edge of the stamp and extends down to the "13" in "1394." In my scan enlargement, I can barely make out the white line above the "13."
I know it's difficult to see these things in scans, but I'm looking for others' opinions. Am I correct in believing this is a repair? If so, it seems like a lot of trouble for such a defective stamp unless the other problems accrued later.
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Visually it doesn't look a repair to me (from the picture). So if it is, it is reasonably well done. Based on some ink flow along the "line", I would guess it was a natural pre-print paper wrinkle/crease. There appears to be another "crease" running at an angle to it near the bottom left corner?
You can test for repairs by also doing the below. Remember, you are not actually looking for a tear/crease, but a repair. Which means you want to look at the area surrounding the crease (and NOT the actual crease). The crease will almost always show using the below methods, but the repair zone along the length of the crease...
-- hold it up to a bright light and look through the backside, a repair will often show thickness along the length of the crease/tear
-- soak in watermark fluid (as if looking for a tear), the repair "zone" may appear off-color
-- hit the backside with filtered UV light, the repair zone will may show a difference in absorption/photoluminescence
Of course, some repairs will "fall apart" when soaked in water (but then you lose the repair job!).
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Thanks for taking a look, Kim.
You're right about that crease near the bottom left corner. That appears to be a crease, the type I'm all too familiar with.
I'm not familiar with pre-print paper wrinkles/creases. If I've seen one, I didn't recognize it as such.
When I look at this from the back toward a bright light, the vertical crease/repair shows as a very straight and very narrow dark line, but the diagonal crease at the lower corner shows a similar dark line. Something I failed to mention before: The line from the back appears to be raised. Also, I just noticed that the crease/repair appears to stop about a mm above the bottom of the stamp.
I'm out of watermark fluid. I need to order some to try that second test.
Y'know, this stamp ought to be worth a premium. It has a stain, short perfs, two thinned areas, paper adhesions, two hinge remnants, a probable crease and a possible repair. About the only thing missing is regumming.
I have another Azores stamp that definitely has a repaired tear. It may or may not have come from the same Portuguese colonies collection. (I bought two collections back in the '80s.) The repair on this other stamp (Scott 146) is more noticeable from the front of the stamp.
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Just for the Halibut, does anyone have the Scott listing for this fishy stamp ?
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Interesting stamp. I feel the top right could be re perforated. The edge look different to other edges
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
CDJ, if you're asking for the Scott catalog number, it is 77. If that's not what you're asking, I need some help in understanding your question.
gakshat, reperforation is another area I know little about. It's not something I'm accustomed to noticing. What are you seeing that suggests to you the top right-hand corner may have been reperfed? Are you talking about just 1-2 perfs or more? I'd like to get a better understanding of how to identify reperfing.
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
" ... I need some help in understanding your question. ...."
Scott lists a comparative value which usually has little relationship to the real world.
I'm away from home and do not have my catalogs in my hip pocket, so I wondered what the listing was, or is, to excite the attention.
Charlie
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Here are the scans for the other top three values from this set. They look like comb to me and I see why there's a question about the upper right-hand corner of the #77 stamp.
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Thanks nl947 for explaining.. That's exactly what I meant.. I don't know much about the stamp but 1 of 4 edge being different suggested re perforation. Your images also further add weight to that suspicion.
The com perforated stamps are identical on all sides as seen from bl947 image.
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Thank you gakshat and Nelson for bringing this issue to my attention and helping me understand how to identify the reperforation. I appreciate the help!
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Very interesting, but I still wonder what Scott lists it at. Genuine examples must be significant to generate all the attention and effort to repair it.
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
The Scott 2016 value for an unused copy is $225.
re: Is this a repaired 1894 Azores Scott 77?
Curious. Neither Michel or Afinsa provides no detail about the perforation type. Just 14. For most stamps/series there's a note whether line or comb
-k-