An older stamp that is clean with no fibers on the perf teeth and white paper are usually suspected of regumming. The regumming process requires a cleaning process that removes all dirt, grime, adhesions and old gum from a stamp. The paper has to be pristine or else the new gum will not adhere smoothly to the paper. One other tell-tale sign of regumming is some gum residue present on the perf teeth. It could be that trimming the perf teeth was to remove gum residue.
Back in the 70's there was an individual from Quebec that would "improve" stamps by reperfing them or trimming margins. He apparently did his thing with an exacto knife "freehand". He demonstrated to police his technique when arrested but as far as I can remember he did not get into regumming. There were rumours that he had reappeared in the early 2000's but I have not heard anything recently about him. There have also been some stamp "improvers" working out of Taiwan but have not heard anything recently about them. It would be possible for their works of deception to linger on in the philatelic marketplace but why would anyone want to "play" with Canada E6? Its just not worth the effort,
Michael Generali and Dennis Jorgensen: This is in ref. to your comments which are following this. In the case of the #E6 the expensive one is certainly the one the photo came from. No stamp was cut only the photo. Not sure how both of you could not see that it was the same stamp as both Dave Bennett and I pointed out (I many times.). You can see some of the cut off fibres on lower stamp in Dave's photo and he gives details of how this would be done. Does Hip Stamp now accept that this is the same stamp Digitally cleaned up?
When I entered my last comments it was ahead of the comments from Generali and Jorgensen and now it follows. If you can please remove my words "which are following this" or advise me how to do it. Thanks.
Just to note, this would be a very serious accusation, and something which we do not take lightly. If a Seller were to copy another Seller's images and purport the stamp to be their own which they are selling - whether doctored or otherwise - that Seller would immediately be removed from our website, as this would be a clear case of a terms and conditions violation.
With that in mind, we have reviewed the two images in question, and they are not the same image - or the same stamp, whether modified or otherwise.
With regards to the photo Dave uploaded, you can't really overlay one image of the same stamp over another and just change the opacity to compare the two - because you will generally just see the stamp with the larger margins, because you're adding the same color over the same color - so it would be very difficult to compare the two in this way.
To properly compare the two stamps, you would need to take the stamp with the larger margins - which is the more expensive stamp in this case - which has larger top and left margins, and place the stamp with the smaller margins over it. You would then need to match up the designs on the stamps themselves, and not just change the opacity of the top image - but remove the black background, and tint the stamp to highlight the differences. When you do all of this, here's what you see, so no they are not the same stamp:
If you look closely at the red - the dark red places around the perfs are where the perfs on the less expensive stamp are longer and/or in different positions than the more expensive one. So the image could not have been "cleaned up" with the perfs being trimmed, unless the perfs were digitally added and also moved - because they are not in the exact same position relative to the design on both stamp.
John, I never said that the stamp images were of the same stamp. My last comment was in general reference to a question as to how perfs could appear so clean on an older stamp as relates to the regumming process.
Neat detective work, Mark . . . but I still can't get past the fact that the two images had EXACTLY the same size black window around them when they were scanned, that neither image varied in the angle that it was scanned, and that all the perfs line up so similarly.
I'm not making any accusations . . . I just think it's astoundingly suspicious that the two images overlay each other so exactly!
One is 500x339 and the other is 500x342 - so they're certainly very close - but not exactly the same. This isn't too surprising since it's the same stamp and many people scan stamps at 300 dpi - which these ones are as well - so the size should be around there. To match up the designs perfectly, one image also needs to be rotated very slightly - so the angle too is very close - but not exactly the same. To get them to line up perfectly you would need to slightly rotate and resize one of the images.
That being said, it's not really that suspicious that these two stamps would be similar - since we have 100 Canada #E6s. It's not all that uncommon that 2 stamps out of 100 would have similar perfs - but again as can be seen above they're not matching up perfectly - they're certainly more similar than others, and others even in that batch of 100 would likely match up more similarly.
Just for added reference, if you take this completely unrelated Canada #E6: ID: 12630179 and overlay one of John's own Canada #E6's: ID: 14729628 in the same way per the above, here's what it looks like:
Which, in my opinion, the perfs are more lined up than the previous discussed (granted his image needed to be resized first because it's a lower resolution). But for the sake of comparing perfs...
Dave Bennett: Sorry to see you give in when you are so right. I can see that it is the same stamp photo but enhanced by having fibres cut off, straightening perfs at bottom and adding a semi-perf. at upper right corner. I had hoped that Hip Stamp or their agent would buy the stamp to see what they get.
As noted above, this is an item we take seriously, as it would be a clear terms and conditions violation if true.
That being said, it's not just that the perfs do not match up perfectly, and all of which would needed to have been digitally trimmed, and then additional perfs digitally added. It's also that the design would have needed to be moved within the perfs themselves. All that being said, it's also that the images themselves are quite different. One has a sharper image than the other (not withstanding the brightness/contrast difference). They were also scanned on different scanners. This can be determined because one has the scanner information (an HP) embedded in the file itself, and the overall look of the images is different. Here's another comparison where it's easier to see (pay close attention to "POSTES" and the two 20s):
Again, since this would be a terms and conditions violation if true, I did feel it was important to highlight why we do not believe this to be the same image. But as Dave noted I'll move on to other things now ;-)
Getting a lot of mileage on this topic. To settle this someone please buy the $13.60 copy and get it certed expecting a similar grade. Then repost it on HipStamp at $200- a real bargain when compared with it's $1350.00 "brother".
But just for fun I looked up the fairly common US Scott #114 used in various grades in the Scott 2008 Specialized Valuing Supplement. It lists FVF (75 points) at $12.50. VF (80 points) at $20.. XF (90 points) raises it all the way up to $70. But a Superb copy (98 points) catalogs a whopping $625 !!
Even the common Scott #65 (available by the 100's or more in bulk) in Superb used condition ( 98 points) catalogs $375
Catalog publishers can put any value that they want on any stamp in any condition. Catalog values are obsolete by the time the catalog is printed since the lead time needed runs six months and more. Scott is now in its 2018 edition, but it contains values from 2016. Where's the value in that? That's the reason why I can't stand sellers who put "Catalog Value $XXX" with no frame of reference in their listings. What value? What Catalog? What year? Totally meaningless.
Unless and until people actually pay catalog value for a stamp, the stamp isn't worth that amount. Since people rarely pay catalog value for stamps, catalog values are meaningless as anything other than a guide.
Agreed - that it is a Scott Specialized means nothing but it has a bit more credibility than the prices listed by those doing the grading and certification themcelves, mostly. At least a lot of the 3 figure 100 point 1950's 3 cent commemoratives have returned back to their rightful place on the market.. I was waiting for the "Huge markdown - was $150, now 20 cents" sales but the dreamers kept it quiet.
The $1300 stamp has not been certified. It was graded using the EZGrader program. Here is what I got when I put them both through EZGrader (this is a demo version, and being my first time, I may not have optimized the images for grading. I don't know). It appears to confirm, though, what I said in my previous post, that the expensive stamp is off-center to the right, while the cheap one is off-center to the left. Also they have opposite vertical off-centering.
I can only go by what the seller has in his description which states this
#E6 20 cent Progress, Special Delivery Issues, (1935) Stamp mint OG NH XXF This stamp comes with a EZGRADER certificate Graded SUPERB99 GEM STAMP
Anyways the whole thing is that the claim was made that the image for the less expensive stamp was altered and not the picture for the graded stamp that was the altered. Wouldn't it make more sense if it was the picture from the cheaper stamp that was altered to make it look better to "justify" the cost of the more expensive stamp? It doesn't make any sense to me at all why any seller would do it that way in the first place since it would be faster to just scan the less expensive stamp in the first place instead of taking the extra time to alter a less expensive stamp.
I agree with everything you say, Michael. If you look at the lines placed by EZGrader to delineate the margins, you can see that, on the cheap stamp, the line that goes across the top red frame line, on the left side goes through the peak of the perf, while on the expensive stamp, the line crosses just at the top of the perf hole, because the expensive stamp's vignette is shifted slightly downward, while the cheap stamp's is shifted slightly upward.
Anyway (as an aside), my takeaway from this is to not give credence to any EZGrader grades. That $1300 stamp does not appear Superb99 to my eyes (nor did it appear that way to my EZGrader evaluation). Also, I just ran the expensive stamp through EZG again after rotating the image slightly counterclockwise (0.1 degrees), and the resulting grade was worse, VF79. However, this is due to the fact that, EZG placed the lower margin delineation at the edge of the perf holes, and ran the upper margin line smack through the middle of the holes. I give EZGrader a failing grade.
I agree Ted, HipValue is only meant as an indicator of sales trends on HipStamp.
However, it is not meant to be an accurate valuator of market prices. Even Scott catalogues are not a good indicator of market of prices. A good example are the current US used stamps (2005-present). Scott still lists the majority of these items as $0.25 used. Brookman catalog and Michel catalog have a more realistic value, somewhere between $0.80 and $1.20. So if a seller list the item at 300% Scott, it is still a good value to the realistic market value. Modern US commemoratives are not even being sold to use for postage. Virtually all postal clerks only offer definitive rolls or booklets to their customers, so the commemorates are only marketed to collectors!
Through HipStamp, I bought a US Scott 138 MH (cat is $4250) and got the item for $335 (what!?! 8% cat?) As a buyer I was happy, but as a seller I am concerned. The actual market value of this stamp should be somewhere in the $2400 ballpark (it would have realized a selling price in that range if it had been sold by an auction house).
So then buyers start looking at the HipValue and think, "Oh, I should be able to pick up all of this material around 25% of catalog," thereby deflating the value of all of our collections. On major US material, the Scott catalog values are steadily declining. How is that so? We don't have any more in the market than we did before!
I have sold many US used stamps with VF-superb centering through auction houses. When looking at Scott catalog, the item sells for $0.25-$0.50, but I realized as much as $60 for them. Mark, are these kind of sales also calculated into the HipValue?
"Scott catalogues are not a good indicator of market of prices"
That's an understatement. When Scott values are published they can be up to 1 1/2 years old based on the edition year of the catalog.
"Brookman catalog and Michel catalog have a more realistic value"
I disagree. Michel values in particular as based on availability of the stamps in Europe. Most US stamps are available in the US. Brookman, Harris, Mystic, et al of those dealers are over priced.
"Modern US commemoratives are not even being sold to use for postage"
That is not true as an absolute statement. Many modern stamps are being sold at discounts from face in bulk postage lots. Many of these lots are sold through ads in Linns, and other dealers. I have purchased many self-adhesive stamps at 80% and 70% of face value.
"I have sold many US used stamps with VF-superb centering through auction houses. When looking at Scott catalog, the item sells for $0.25-$0.50, but I realized as much as $60 for them."
That's because there are greedy dealers who have convinced greedy buyers that such stamps are a big investment. If someone wants to spend their money making such dealers rich, I could care less.
Comments
that this is the same stamp Digitally cleaned up?
With that in mind, we have reviewed the two images in question, and they are not the same image - or the same stamp, whether modified or otherwise.
With regards to the photo Dave uploaded, you can't really overlay one image of the same stamp over another and just change the opacity to compare the two - because you will generally just see the stamp with the larger margins, because you're adding the same color over the same color - so it would be very difficult to compare the two in this way.
To properly compare the two stamps, you would need to take the stamp with the larger margins - which is the more expensive stamp in this case - which has larger top and left margins, and place the stamp with the smaller margins over it. You would then need to match up the designs on the stamps themselves, and not just change the opacity of the top image - but remove the black background, and tint the stamp to highlight the differences. When you do all of this, here's what you see, so no they are not the same stamp:
If you look closely at the red - the dark red places around the perfs are where the perfs on the less expensive stamp are longer and/or in different positions than the more expensive one. So the image could not have been "cleaned up" with the perfs being trimmed, unless the perfs were digitally added and also moved - because they are not in the exact same position relative to the design on both stamp.
ie:
I'm not making any accusations . . . I just think it's astoundingly suspicious that the two images overlay each other so exactly!
That being said, it's not really that suspicious that these two stamps would be similar - since we have 100 Canada #E6s. It's not all that uncommon that 2 stamps out of 100 would have similar perfs - but again as can be seen above they're not matching up perfectly - they're certainly more similar than others, and others even in that batch of 100 would likely match up more similarly.
We should let you get back to taking care of more important matters!
ID: 12630179 and overlay one of John's own Canada #E6's: ID: 14729628 in the same way per the above, here's what it looks like:
Which, in my opinion, the perfs are more lined up than the previous discussed (granted his image needed to be resized first because it's a lower resolution). But for the sake of comparing perfs...
That being said, it's not just that the perfs do not match up perfectly, and all of which would needed to have been digitally trimmed, and then additional perfs digitally added. It's also that the design would have needed to be moved within the perfs themselves. All that being said, it's also that the images themselves are quite different. One has a sharper image than the other (not withstanding the brightness/contrast difference). They were also scanned on different scanners. This can be determined because one has the scanner information (an HP) embedded in the file itself, and the overall look of the images is different. Here's another comparison where it's easier to see (pay close attention to "POSTES" and the two 20s):
Again, since this would be a terms and conditions violation if true, I did feel it was important to highlight why we do not believe this to be the same image. But as Dave noted I'll move on to other things now ;-)
But just for fun I looked up the fairly common US Scott #114 used in various grades in the Scott 2008 Specialized Valuing Supplement. It lists FVF (75 points) at $12.50. VF (80 points) at $20.. XF (90 points) raises it all the way up to $70. But a Superb copy (98 points) catalogs a whopping $625 !!
Even the common Scott #65 (available by the 100's or more in bulk) in Superb used condition ( 98 points) catalogs $375
Unless and until people actually pay catalog value for a stamp, the stamp isn't worth that amount. Since people rarely pay catalog value for stamps, catalog values are meaningless as anything other than a guide.
First the $13 stamp:
amd the $1300 stamp:
I can only go by what the seller has in his description which states this
#E6 20 cent Progress, Special Delivery Issues, (1935) Stamp mint OG NH XXF This stamp comes with a EZGRADER certificate Graded SUPERB99 GEM STAMP
Anyways the whole thing is that the claim was made that the image for the less expensive stamp was altered and not the picture for the graded stamp that was the altered. Wouldn't it make more sense if it was the picture from the cheaper stamp that was altered to make it look better to "justify" the cost of the more expensive stamp? It doesn't make any sense to me at all why any seller would do it that way in the first place since it would be faster to just scan the less expensive stamp in the first place instead of taking the extra time to alter a less expensive stamp.
Anyway (as an aside), my takeaway from this is to not give credence to any EZGrader grades. That $1300 stamp does not appear Superb99 to my eyes (nor did it appear that way to my EZGrader evaluation). Also, I just ran the expensive stamp through EZG again after rotating the image slightly counterclockwise (0.1 degrees), and the resulting grade was worse, VF79. However, this is due to the fact that, EZG placed the lower margin delineation at the edge of the perf holes, and ran the upper margin line smack through the middle of the holes. I give EZGrader a failing grade.
However, it is not meant to be an accurate valuator of market prices. Even Scott catalogues are not a good indicator of market of prices. A good example are the current US used stamps (2005-present). Scott still lists the majority of these items as $0.25 used. Brookman catalog and Michel catalog have a more realistic value, somewhere between $0.80 and $1.20. So if a seller list the item at 300% Scott, it is still a good value to the realistic market value.
Modern US commemoratives are not even being sold to use for postage. Virtually all postal clerks only offer definitive rolls or booklets to their customers, so the commemorates are only marketed to collectors!
Through HipStamp, I bought a US Scott 138 MH (cat is $4250) and got the item for $335 (what!?! 8% cat?) As a buyer I was happy, but as a seller I am concerned. The actual market value of this stamp should be somewhere in the $2400 ballpark (it would have realized a selling price in that range if it had been sold by an auction house).
So then buyers start looking at the HipValue and think, "Oh, I should be able to pick up all of this material around 25% of catalog," thereby deflating the value of all of our collections. On major US material, the Scott catalog values are steadily declining. How is that so? We don't have any more in the market than we did before!
I have sold many US used stamps with VF-superb centering through auction houses. When looking at Scott catalog, the item sells for $0.25-$0.50, but I realized as much as $60 for them. Mark, are these kind of sales also calculated into the HipValue?
That's an understatement. When Scott values are published they can be up to 1 1/2 years old based on the edition year of the catalog.
"Brookman catalog and Michel catalog have a more realistic value"
I disagree. Michel values in particular as based on availability of the stamps in Europe. Most US stamps are available in the US. Brookman, Harris, Mystic, et al of those dealers are over priced.
"Modern US commemoratives are not even being sold to use for postage"
That is not true as an absolute statement. Many modern stamps are being sold at discounts from face in bulk postage lots. Many of these lots are sold through ads in Linns, and other dealers. I have purchased many self-adhesive stamps at 80% and 70% of face value.
"I have sold many US used stamps with VF-superb centering through auction houses. When looking at Scott catalog, the item sells for $0.25-$0.50, but I realized as much as $60 for them."
That's because there are greedy dealers who have convinced greedy buyers that such stamps are a big investment. If someone wants to spend their money making such dealers rich, I could care less.