Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Larry
Login to Like
this post
Larry,
Under the heading 'Understanding valuing notations' of my 2010 US Specialized, it states -
"....the absence of a value does not necessarily suggest that a stamp is scarce or rare....information is lacking or insufficient for purposes of establishing a usable catalog value. These could include rarities....or items that have a limited market..."
I take this all to mean....."we don't know!"
Randy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:36:09pm
Considering how far off the mark the values in Scott's CWAGs often are I don't see any problem with a listed issue that they can't decide what to guess as its Scott Value listing.
Login to Like
this post
But help me understand. If they can determine the value for a mint stamp, why not a used one? Surely Used are more common than Mint so it must not be a "rarity" thing. Any ideas?
And Carl, I get the impression you were joking but I don't know enough to get it. (You don't have to explain. I assume everyone else got it.)
I know watermarks are difficult to detect sometime. Do you guys think I should just assume it has one or would it be worth the money to get it expertised? All opinions are welcome.
Thanks.
Larry
Login to Like
this post
Larry,
Actually, that may be EXACTLY what it is - a 'rarity' thing.
Used stamps are not ALWAYS more common than mint.
A good example;
how many of us (or anyone else) have seen or heard of a USED copy of the Legends of the West Bill Pickett error stamp? None, I'll bet.
Now, granted - this was an error, but it makes my point.
Sometimes used CAN be more rare - and therefore more difficult to place a fair market value on - than an unused copy.
Now, I'm not defending Scott here, nor am I saying that this is for sure what happened here; I'm just saying this could be considered as one possible explanation.
Best bet here I think would be to pose your question to the publishers/editors themselves....unless one of our members here has the answer!
On a side note Larry, make sure you look REALLY close for that watermark, as the single-line watermarks can often be a bugger to see depending on positioning of the individual stamps in the sheet versus watermark position; take a good look at your Scott catalog section on Wmk. 190. Some of those stamps in a sheet like the example shown have only VERY MINIMAL portions of the wmk. lettering running thru them....on some, only thru the smallest of corners!
Not saying you're wrong - just saying be careful and thorough, yes?
Here's hoping you have the 476A!!
Randy
Login to Like
this post
04:03:37pm
Larry,
Firstly, about Scotts absence of price for used. Particularly when the mint is very high priced, this is usually an indication that the only ones known are mint - usually from a "find". This is the case with 476A (more below).
I echo Musicman's comments about the #190 watermark. It is much more likely that there is just a bit of the line of the watermark (which was applied across large portions of the sheet, rather than to each stamp). The standard Scott catalog does not do a good job of explaining this. Here is the entry for watermarks 190 and 191 from the beginning of the US section of my 2011 Scotts Volume 1:
If one doesn't realize the significance of the part pointed to by the red arrow, it will pass one by quite easily.
Here is the entry from my 2008 Scott Specialized of US stamps:
Note the positions I have highlighted with the red arrows. Did you look in the corners and along the edges? This is a tough watermark!
Now, about 476A specifically:
I take the liberty of borrowing from the American Plate Number Single Society website:
http://www.apnss.org/WF-unwmkd.htm 
Scott 476A, 30c, Plate number 6911 T, photographically cropped from a plate block of 6
All copies of Scott 476A are unused with full gum. Certified genuine copies of this rarity must generally be in multiples to prove that there is no trace of a watermark. This stamp was not recognized with a Scott catalog number until 1957. Since then only two full panes, one partial pane and one plate number single have been certified as genuine -- meaning that, at most, only five or six copies with plate number have been found.
(emphasis mine)
Roy
http://www.buckacover.com
60,000 covers 60c to $1.50 !!!
"The next best thing to a stamp show"
Login to Like
this post
Roy,
Looks like you aced that one!
Excellent info and images!
Larry,
Unfortunately it looks like you have the 439....sorry to say!
(thanks, Roy! Gald to see you on here more often lately!)
Randy
Login to Like
this post
Roy,
Thank you so much for the info. I figured it couldn't be a 476A but didn't know why.
Larry
Login to Like
this post
Can someone tell me why Scott's does not show a value for a used US 476A? I can not find a watermark on a stamp labeled as a 439. But if no watermark, its a 476A.
Larry
Login to Like
this post
re: Used US #476A ?
Larry,
Under the heading 'Understanding valuing notations' of my 2010 US Specialized, it states -
"....the absence of a value does not necessarily suggest that a stamp is scarce or rare....information is lacking or insufficient for purposes of establishing a usable catalog value. These could include rarities....or items that have a limited market..."
I take this all to mean....."we don't know!"
Randy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
12 Mar 2011
10:36:09pm
re: Used US #476A ?
Considering how far off the mark the values in Scott's CWAGs often are I don't see any problem with a listed issue that they can't decide what to guess as its Scott Value listing.
Login to Like
this post
re: Used US #476A ?
But help me understand. If they can determine the value for a mint stamp, why not a used one? Surely Used are more common than Mint so it must not be a "rarity" thing. Any ideas?
And Carl, I get the impression you were joking but I don't know enough to get it. (You don't have to explain. I assume everyone else got it.)
I know watermarks are difficult to detect sometime. Do you guys think I should just assume it has one or would it be worth the money to get it expertised? All opinions are welcome.
Thanks.
Larry
Login to Like
this post
re: Used US #476A ?
Larry,
Actually, that may be EXACTLY what it is - a 'rarity' thing.
Used stamps are not ALWAYS more common than mint.
A good example;
how many of us (or anyone else) have seen or heard of a USED copy of the Legends of the West Bill Pickett error stamp? None, I'll bet.
Now, granted - this was an error, but it makes my point.
Sometimes used CAN be more rare - and therefore more difficult to place a fair market value on - than an unused copy.
Now, I'm not defending Scott here, nor am I saying that this is for sure what happened here; I'm just saying this could be considered as one possible explanation.
Best bet here I think would be to pose your question to the publishers/editors themselves....unless one of our members here has the answer!
On a side note Larry, make sure you look REALLY close for that watermark, as the single-line watermarks can often be a bugger to see depending on positioning of the individual stamps in the sheet versus watermark position; take a good look at your Scott catalog section on Wmk. 190. Some of those stamps in a sheet like the example shown have only VERY MINIMAL portions of the wmk. lettering running thru them....on some, only thru the smallest of corners!
Not saying you're wrong - just saying be careful and thorough, yes?
Here's hoping you have the 476A!!
Randy
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
13 Mar 2011
04:03:37pm
re: Used US #476A ?
Larry,
Firstly, about Scotts absence of price for used. Particularly when the mint is very high priced, this is usually an indication that the only ones known are mint - usually from a "find". This is the case with 476A (more below).
I echo Musicman's comments about the #190 watermark. It is much more likely that there is just a bit of the line of the watermark (which was applied across large portions of the sheet, rather than to each stamp). The standard Scott catalog does not do a good job of explaining this. Here is the entry for watermarks 190 and 191 from the beginning of the US section of my 2011 Scotts Volume 1:
If one doesn't realize the significance of the part pointed to by the red arrow, it will pass one by quite easily.
Here is the entry from my 2008 Scott Specialized of US stamps:
Note the positions I have highlighted with the red arrows. Did you look in the corners and along the edges? This is a tough watermark!
Now, about 476A specifically:
I take the liberty of borrowing from the American Plate Number Single Society website:
http://www.apnss.org/WF-unwmkd.htm
Scott 476A, 30c, Plate number 6911 T, photographically cropped from a plate block of 6
All copies of Scott 476A are unused with full gum. Certified genuine copies of this rarity must generally be in multiples to prove that there is no trace of a watermark. This stamp was not recognized with a Scott catalog number until 1957. Since then only two full panes, one partial pane and one plate number single have been certified as genuine -- meaning that, at most, only five or six copies with plate number have been found.
(emphasis mine)
Roy
http://www.buckacover.com
60,000 covers 60c to $1.50 !!!
"The next best thing to a stamp show"
Login to Like
this post
re: Used US #476A ?
Roy,
Looks like you aced that one!
Excellent info and images!
Larry,
Unfortunately it looks like you have the 439....sorry to say!
(thanks, Roy! Gald to see you on here more often lately!)
Randy
Login to Like
this post
re: Used US #476A ?
Roy,
Thank you so much for the info. I figured it couldn't be a 476A but didn't know why.
Larry
Login to Like
this post