Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Thoughts?
Thanks, Dave.
"I think this one may have been reperfed on the right side. The cut line on the right is usually a straight edge. Also, the vertical perfs are not parallel to each other. Another way to tell is to look at the perfs under magnification. If it is the original perfs, then you should see paper threads emanating from around the perfs. Reperfed stamps will not have as many of these small threads, if any at all."
Looked at the perfs under magnification and looked to me like a few perf-end threads on both sides but couldn't discern quantity.
Login to Like
this post
Looks O.K. to my eye.
Dan C
Login to Like
this post
The lines don't signify the unperforated edge of a sheet at all. See above. Boy would I love to have that block!
Login to Like
this post
I did a quick overlay of lines to help visualize. No, the perfs aren't perfectly parallel on either side, but they weren't in this era, as they would be in more modern issues(see line perf vs. comb perf). The lines shown below are parallel to each other, though. Everything seems to be spaced out uniformly, too. I see no issue with the perfs.
Login to Like
this post
I am not an expert on reperfs, but the right side looks too uniformed. The perfs are all the same, no one perf longer than the next. The other 3 sides are uneven. Just my opinion.
Keith
Login to Like
this post
Just from a common sense standpoint I can't imagine why anyone would reperf a common stamp - that is usually reserved for the expensive issues.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Everyone;
Thank that member for sending you his concerns. Better still e-mail that member a link to this thread, so he knows he is mistaken in his assumption about the right side should not be perfed.
It looks good to me also. This stamp is not worth getting expertized in any event.
Just sell it as a used stamp with no certs at all.
Just thinkin'....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
Is it April 1 yet? I lost my calendar.
Tad
Login to Like
this post
Hi Everyone;
Anglophile said:
"Ultimately the community is better served if people do a bit of research before answering,
rather than jumping in fast with a guess, but the informality of SOR doesn't make doing so an evil."
I have sure been guilty of that more than once.
Anglophile also said:
"My post has been edited to remove any hint of personal commentary, for the benefit of the community."
I wish I had been thoughtful enough to do that in many of MY posts!
I've read some of my old posts from when I first joined, and could not believe what I read. Was I on drugs or what? Actually for a few weeks I was on some powerful pain killers from a double hernia surgery a while back.
Just regrettin'....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
In the original post, Dave was merely quoting what was suggested to him as a possibility, and a recommendation that he post the question on the Discussion Board to get another opinion. Any mistakes in fact were not Dave's, they were mine.
Login to Like
this post
Just to throw a wrench into it all...
I took a quick look at the stamp based on the thread title before I read the post.
My initial reaction was that the bottom edge might have been partially re-perfed (i.e., some of the perforation holes had been "cleaned up").
Using the holes on the top side as a baseline for the pin wear, there is a world of difference between the general hole size/shape/nibs of the top and bottom perforations.
While there will always be a few nicely round and clean holes, the baseline presented by the top perforations indicates there are way too many perfect holes at bottom -- in particular, it would appear that several of the holes at lower right may have been re-perfed. The pic resolution is not sufficient to make a final determination -- you would have to examine the stamp directly. I'm not saying it has been re-perfed, only that it does look suspect.
Note, it is better to compare perforations on the same stamp and along parallel edges, as pin wear makes a pretty huge difference sometimes.
Login to Like
this post
Interesting observation Kim. The difference in "quality" of the perf holes is quite noticeable both on the scan and in real life. Puzzling though why someone would re-perf the bottom but not the top - especially not a valuable stamp with no tangible upside to doing so (that I can think of). Here's some potentially useful info.
The original collector (the album was signed by a 16-year old in 1923 but had stamps through to the mid-1930s) had almost an over-abundance of stamps on album pages that had at least one straight edge (i.e. no perfs) which I found unusual - but maybe that's a collecting interest for some? In particular, I have about 6 copies of this stamp, 4 with a straight edge.
I also found about a dozen that looked to be imperfs but on close inspection (and even being generally clueless) appeared to me to be trimmed to appear so. (I threw away about 6 and kept about 4 "just in case").
My speculation is that this collector liked stamps with straight edge(s) and perhaps experimented with perforating or trimming some of them. No idea of course and unless I come across something with a CV of $25 or more I'm not sure how much more time I'm willing to spend with such minute investigations.
Thanks again for the feedback.
Login to Like
this post
For what its worth:
Login to Like
this post
Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was either a partial re-perforation of existing perfs, rather than adding perforations to a straight edge.
HungaryForStamps' image does nicely show the noticeable difference in the shape/smoothness between the top/bottom hole edges. Since the top perf holes exhibit nibs along the left half of most hole edges, one would expect to see the same effect on the majority of the bottom perf holes. Instead, the majority of the bottom holes appear exceptionally round and clean, suggesting that several of them might have been re-perfed. So in this case, the problem is not with the spacing of the perfs, but the shape/sharpness of the perf holes.
Does it make a difference in the value of the stamp (or should it make a difference)? That's up to the buyer/market. I only mentioned it because of the thread title. Proving it was re-perfed is a separate issue. I agree, on this stamp, I don't think it's worth the time/money to get a paid expert opinion. For this stamp, I personally don't even think it is necessary to mention it. If something like that bothers a buyer, then they should just go on to the next listing.
Still a very nice stamp as far as I'm concerned.
Login to Like
this post
Got a PM from a member who noticed something I would have no clue about on the following stamp I have on Auction (it is "On Hold" until resolved). Here is the scan and the comments.
Thoughts?
Thanks, Dave.
"I think this one may have been reperfed on the right side. The cut line on the right is usually a straight edge. Also, the vertical perfs are not parallel to each other. Another way to tell is to look at the perfs under magnification. If it is the original perfs, then you should see paper threads emanating from around the perfs. Reperfed stamps will not have as many of these small threads, if any at all."
Looked at the perfs under magnification and looked to me like a few perf-end threads on both sides but couldn't discern quantity.
Login to Like
this post
re: Possible Reperf?
The lines don't signify the unperforated edge of a sheet at all. See above. Boy would I love to have that block!
Login to Like
this post
re: Possible Reperf?
I did a quick overlay of lines to help visualize. No, the perfs aren't perfectly parallel on either side, but they weren't in this era, as they would be in more modern issues(see line perf vs. comb perf). The lines shown below are parallel to each other, though. Everything seems to be spaced out uniformly, too. I see no issue with the perfs.
Login to Like
this post
03:24:16pm
re: Possible Reperf?
I am not an expert on reperfs, but the right side looks too uniformed. The perfs are all the same, no one perf longer than the next. The other 3 sides are uneven. Just my opinion.
Keith
Login to Like
this post
03:32:37pm
Auctions - Approvals
re: Possible Reperf?
Just from a common sense standpoint I can't imagine why anyone would reperf a common stamp - that is usually reserved for the expensive issues.
Login to Like
this post
re: Possible Reperf?
Hi Everyone;
Thank that member for sending you his concerns. Better still e-mail that member a link to this thread, so he knows he is mistaken in his assumption about the right side should not be perfed.
It looks good to me also. This stamp is not worth getting expertized in any event.
Just sell it as a used stamp with no certs at all.
Just thinkin'....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
re: Possible Reperf?
Is it April 1 yet? I lost my calendar.
Tad
Login to Like
this post
re: Possible Reperf?
Hi Everyone;
Anglophile said:
"Ultimately the community is better served if people do a bit of research before answering,
rather than jumping in fast with a guess, but the informality of SOR doesn't make doing so an evil."
I have sure been guilty of that more than once.
Anglophile also said:
"My post has been edited to remove any hint of personal commentary, for the benefit of the community."
I wish I had been thoughtful enough to do that in many of MY posts!
I've read some of my old posts from when I first joined, and could not believe what I read. Was I on drugs or what? Actually for a few weeks I was on some powerful pain killers from a double hernia surgery a while back.
Just regrettin'....
TuskenRaider
Login to Like
this post
09:36:26pm
re: Possible Reperf?
In the original post, Dave was merely quoting what was suggested to him as a possibility, and a recommendation that he post the question on the Discussion Board to get another opinion. Any mistakes in fact were not Dave's, they were mine.
Login to Like
this post
re: Possible Reperf?
Just to throw a wrench into it all...
I took a quick look at the stamp based on the thread title before I read the post.
My initial reaction was that the bottom edge might have been partially re-perfed (i.e., some of the perforation holes had been "cleaned up").
Using the holes on the top side as a baseline for the pin wear, there is a world of difference between the general hole size/shape/nibs of the top and bottom perforations.
While there will always be a few nicely round and clean holes, the baseline presented by the top perforations indicates there are way too many perfect holes at bottom -- in particular, it would appear that several of the holes at lower right may have been re-perfed. The pic resolution is not sufficient to make a final determination -- you would have to examine the stamp directly. I'm not saying it has been re-perfed, only that it does look suspect.
Note, it is better to compare perforations on the same stamp and along parallel edges, as pin wear makes a pretty huge difference sometimes.
Login to Like
this post
re: Possible Reperf?
Interesting observation Kim. The difference in "quality" of the perf holes is quite noticeable both on the scan and in real life. Puzzling though why someone would re-perf the bottom but not the top - especially not a valuable stamp with no tangible upside to doing so (that I can think of). Here's some potentially useful info.
The original collector (the album was signed by a 16-year old in 1923 but had stamps through to the mid-1930s) had almost an over-abundance of stamps on album pages that had at least one straight edge (i.e. no perfs) which I found unusual - but maybe that's a collecting interest for some? In particular, I have about 6 copies of this stamp, 4 with a straight edge.
I also found about a dozen that looked to be imperfs but on close inspection (and even being generally clueless) appeared to me to be trimmed to appear so. (I threw away about 6 and kept about 4 "just in case").
My speculation is that this collector liked stamps with straight edge(s) and perhaps experimented with perforating or trimming some of them. No idea of course and unless I come across something with a CV of $25 or more I'm not sure how much more time I'm willing to spend with such minute investigations.
Thanks again for the feedback.
Login to Like
this post
re: Possible Reperf?
Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was either a partial re-perforation of existing perfs, rather than adding perforations to a straight edge.
HungaryForStamps' image does nicely show the noticeable difference in the shape/smoothness between the top/bottom hole edges. Since the top perf holes exhibit nibs along the left half of most hole edges, one would expect to see the same effect on the majority of the bottom perf holes. Instead, the majority of the bottom holes appear exceptionally round and clean, suggesting that several of them might have been re-perfed. So in this case, the problem is not with the spacing of the perfs, but the shape/sharpness of the perf holes.
Does it make a difference in the value of the stamp (or should it make a difference)? That's up to the buyer/market. I only mentioned it because of the thread title. Proving it was re-perfed is a separate issue. I agree, on this stamp, I don't think it's worth the time/money to get a paid expert opinion. For this stamp, I personally don't even think it is necessary to mention it. If something like that bothers a buyer, then they should just go on to the next listing.
Still a very nice stamp as far as I'm concerned.
Login to Like
this post