Beware this stamp currently being auctioned on Hipstamp
https://www.hipstamp.com/listing/us-stamps-579-mnh-xf-with-pfc-po-fresh/50498657
The stamp and cert do not match. I urge extreme care dealing with this seller. I've seen several similarly egregious offerings by this same dealer but finally got fed up and decided to comment.
The stamp and cert do not match. I urge extreme care dealing with this seller. I've seen several similarly egregious offerings by this same dealer but finally got fed up and decided to comment.
Comments
It is actually a Scott 135 that carries a 2022 Scott Standard CV of $4000 if genuine Ok, maybe a typo. BUT, Scott explicitly states that this issue was reprinted on whiter paper with perf 12.5 large holes. No indication of perfs in description. And no discussion of the Scott notes for this issue. Scott also states that excellent counterfeits exist for #135. No cert. No back scan. Description indicates that this is "signed". Signed by who? For that kind of cash, I would want to know EVERYTHING about this listing including what color shirt the person who listed it was wearing when they listed it..Maybe it's just me.
Probably more telling is the rose colored tint of his glasses.
that is what I see.
I've also looked briefly at the gentleman's other items. They are generally out of my price range and out of my interest area, so I'm really not qualified to offer a more telling opinion.
Although I would observe that he seems quite generous in calling stamps "superb." I bet he could make hinge remnants disappear!
That said, as much as it pains me to say it "Greg is right", that stamp is from the bottom right of the block not the upper left. I'll illustrate why when I can update this post.
The stamp at left is the stamp the seller is offering. The stamp at right is the stamp from the lower right corner (image taken from the block of 4 on the PSE website, with cert number matching this cert). I have flipped the image horizontally and altered the PSE image to be the same height as that offered by the seller in their image, and you can see that the detail of every single perforation is identical. That can only be achieved if they are in fact, the same (without altering the perforations, which I don't believe has happened).
However as Luree pointed out, the cert is a copy, or a doctored copy which is difficult to say overall, because the "verified" cert has a different appearance to the authentic cert always (as they don't want people just copying and printing the cert when verified, in particular, it's missing the barcode, and spacing and sizing of images is varied.)
I also think this is a GREAT lesson in why you can't use photos/scans for shade, because this is the same stamp, and appears entirely different shades in each of the 3 images (stamp image, block on cert posted by seller, block on cert as represented on PSE website). Yet, it's the same stamp.
So now comes the really interesting part. Is the cert a mistake? We have certainly seen other certs from every provider that has some blunder on it. Is this an opportunity for someone to take advantage? (It certainly would explain why the block was split up).
And to a degree explains why the cert is a copy of the cert.
But for this stamp to be a 579, it would have to be perf 11 x 10 (11 on sides, 10 on top and bottom). And when I look at this stamp, it very clearly appears a perf 11 to me at top (and bottom). That would make it perf 11 all around, which a flat plate printing, this would only be a 554. The stamp is a Type I.
On a second point not to beat up Phil, but this is NOT part of the Franklin-Washington era actually. They are FW's only from Scott 331 to Scott 547. There are a very few (Panama Pacific issues, and Lincoln and the "red ones" that aren't, but the rest are The FW's referred to in Franklin Washington). Any stamp with the likeness of Franklin or Washington PRE 331 or POST 547 is not in the "FW", (hence why I don't include them in the matrix either).
These issues are all easily to ID'd.
I haven't looked at the sellers other items, it's odd that they are focusing on the upper left and not the lower right, but there is the possibility of just making the mistake that they believe (because of "cert bias" that the cert is right).
Maybe I'll take a peek, though I do believe I encountered them before on The Bay, and not sure my impression was good. Has been more than a decade ago now.
A Scott #579 is perf 11X10 (11 at top and bottom, 10 on the sides). That is what this stamp shown is.
Regards,
Larry
I've been awake for more than 40 hours when I wrote that and still going now...
But the point is, the stamp in the listing is from the block, and it's from the bottom right.
The cert is a copy of the original cert, but it does reflect the block and the single.
If the perforation is right (and I don't have a "screen perf gauge" to check it with (strangely I have no problem seeing perf 10 or 12, but 11 sometimes eludes me), so if that's the case, and I did not even look at the vertical perfs other than to prove that the single is from the block. (And as this thread mentions, we all make mistakes, easier to do when the stamp is no tin hand).
With Larry's point here, I'd say the only thing wrong with this listing is that it does not mention the cert is a scan copy, and that they identified the wrong position from the block, but it is as certified, and we can see the original cert was authentic.
And this thread is proof to me that I should not try to analyze stamps when I've had no sleep for 2 days. ><
Beware the quiet ones...