Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

I came across these today, and after consulting Scotts, thought they'd be worth posting some scans of.

If you see anything that would suggest a fake or reproduction, let me know.

That aside, I'm keen to learn more about how stamps are graded, so please share any thoughts you have regarding the condition, quality, imperfections, etc...

Thanks

4 cent, front & back

50 cent, front & back

$1, front & back, this stamp was in a separate, heavier-duty protective sleeve

Is there a chance someone would share their thoughts on the reverse of the 4 cent?

I'd love to know what it is I'm looking at.

Thanks

time2fish

4c. reverse - at least three bad thins and a large hinge remnant.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Richard- I appreciate it, and don't regard it as bad news, just news.

They are what they are. I'm just trying to learn what, exactly, that is.

So, the heavy material is a hinge remnant. Care to comment on the others?

Thanks!

time2fish

Well a thin is exactly what it says - an area of less than normal thickness of a stamp's paper almost always as result of abrasion. It is a definite negative.

In terms of faults the pecking order normally goes 1) tears, 2) thins, 3) creases, 4) tones (age spots) in decreasing order of severity.

Now a watermark is a special manufactured thin made in the paper and is in no way a fault at all.

Thins can occasionally be shallow or extremely deep, if minuscule and go all the way through they are called pinholes. Another negative.

A former colleague of mine when holding a stamp up to the light to check for a watermark would occasionally say "Watermark multiple thins!" Again another negative.

Kindest regards, Richard

time2fish

By far the best stamp you have in the grouping is the $1 type I overprinted GUAM (Scott 12, $350 [my 2008 Specialized, most current catalogue to hand] and that is probably the reason it was kept separately.

Certainly the centering is not great, technically and charitably Just Fine, here in the U.S., but the only apparent fault/observation to make about it is the inclusion (a wood fiber near the M of GUAM, at the left on the back) in the paper. Since it does not show from the front and the fact that it is a Nineteenth Century stamp this might not be mentioned in an auction description.

It is nicely OG, PH (original gum, previously hinged) and does not appear to have any other faults.

Kindest regards, Richard

Richard- I appreciate your replies.

Thank you.

Richard's condition comments are spot on. The 50c appears to have had the gum soaked off to me, is the only extra comment I can offer.

The GUAM stamp overprints are not plentiful of course, and never were - and to be honest feel today's prices for them are still on the VERY low side.

The USA does and has had for decades, a MASSIVE Military presence on Guam and nearby Saipan - I've visited there many times, and the Military numbers are mind boggling.

The USA knows China will not stay militarily dormant in the mid Pacific forever, and this huge base is their insurance policy.

Anyway the relevance of this that most military folks collect things of personal significance to them if they are philatelists, and a tour of service in GUAM makes them prime candidates to own a set of these, as well as the substantial number of Americans who collect by Scott for all USA issues.

So there will always been good demand for these.

Glen- Thanks for the reply.

Needless to say, I know next to nothing about what stamps would be good to buy and hold, but given how many of these were produced, and the prices on the auction sites, I got a feeling that it might not be a bad idea to add a few more to the collection.

Is it just me, or does the right side on the 4ct look re-perforated as well?

Scissors.

time2fish and hendriks


Well, that certainly is a legitimate concern - at least in my opinion. I assume you mean the left side of the stamp when viewed from the front, rather than the right side.

Reperforation is one of the most devilish problems to spot in U.S. philately. The left side of the 4c. certainly fails some important tests -

1) Odd man out (i.e. three sides are similar when compared to the suspect one), the perfs. at the left are definitely different, they are smaller and they are out of line.

2) They are certainly scissors cut as pointed out by Glen.

However, to be more sure, the stamp should be checked on the Kiusalas U.S. Specialist gauge at 12 - 66.


It is, of course, impossible to check this without having the stamp available for examination.

However, if the vertical sides of the 4c. are measured (from the scan) with an accurate steel rule, such as -



Taking the center-point of a perforation hole on the lower left side to the center-point of a hole, twelve holes up, I measure it at 10.25 cm. This compares to a distance of 10.50 cm for the same distance on the right side.

When making similar measurements on the 50c. and $1.00 scans, the distances for the 12 hole spans for each stamp are the same, left and right. I measure 10.20 cm for the 50c. stamp and 10.70 cm for the $1.00 stamp. These differences are perfectly acceptable since the scans are slightly different sizes, the important point being the equality of left and right sides for the same stamp.

Now, hendriks, I would hesitate to state definitely that the stamp is reperforated without examining it on the gauge above, which is only, as stated on the gauge, for U.S. stamps.

I do, however, very much share your concerns about the stamp. It had occurred to me instantaneously when seeing the scan, as did the fact that the stamp was scissors cut.

A similar Kiusalas Specialist gauge exists for Canadian stamps.



Both these gauges are pretty much available only in the U.S. with the Canadian one being harder to obtain.

Additionally Glen is perfectly correct about the gum problems on the 50c. which I had not addressed.

Kindest regards, Richard

Hi capetriangle,

Thanks for the thorough reply. I meant left side indeed, viewed from the front.

Besides the obvious scissor marks, the mis-alignment of the holes with regards to the other side of the stamp, there are a couple of more things that looked strange to me. Firstly, the slightly different form of the holes (more round instead of elliptic). Secondly some of the holes on the suspected re-perforated side touch the image, while others don't even come half way. On all other three sides, the holes line up perfectly. Thirdly what's also suspicious is some lose paper on the allegedly new holes, but this can happen during production (I don't often see it on US stamps from this period).

Cheers, Hendriks

Maybe a sensible person wouldn't enjoy having their stamps picked apart, but this has been a great thread for me, very educational.

When I look at the left-side of the 4c, I see what looks like two cuts from the scissors, one cut through the first 4-5 perfs from the bottom, angling into the stamp, then a second cut through the remainder, more in line with the stamp.

When I look at the actual perforations, though, they do not appear to have been made in a single straight cut either. I don't know what the equipment for perforating or reperforating stamps looks like, but it seems to me that either the stamp or the equipment moved as that perforation was made.

I do have a gauge, and for what it is worth, I put the stamp on it. The 3 sides came out as perfectly straight 12 perforation. The left side does match the spacing of the 12 perforations, but the perforations are not in a consistent plane with each other, as Hendriks pointed out.

Richard- I'll look into getting a Kiusalas gauges. Again, I appreciate the advice.

Thanks to everyone.

time2fish

For the U.S. gauge I would try Jacques C. Schiff, Jr., Inc. in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. Historically he has had a supply of these. If no longer, I am sure they will be able to recommend someone else.

Kindest regards, Richard