Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

wow!! - 1st wmk MNH:



Mod - Dead link deleted

looks like $24k warrants a black background

Shame it's hinged, despite his claim that it's MNH.

Just left of the A. Clear as day.

Second thoughts - I think that's the Roo's back showing through!

_________________
Always on the lookout for Australian pre decimal First Day Covers.

What a peach - they can't possibly get any better than that, surely.

Dream on, one day, maybe, I'll own one. Sigh.

Clive

Crikey,

For someone who deals in stamps as a private recreational pursuit or hobby, stampcollectorboz certainly comes up with a lot of stamps. I notice that if anybody buys this stamp for $25,000 he will also have to pay postage. $4 if you want to register it, and you get FREE insurance for the first $100.

"THE LAST ONE SOLD FOR JUST OVER $24,000 IN ARTHUR GREY'S AUCTION AT SHREEVES IN NEW YORK FEBRUARY 2007 LOT No 274."

More total fiction on price from this seller.

I was there at the NYC sale, and he was not. It sold for nothing like that. He can't even spell the Auction house right.

This is just lies.

No surprise there.

I'd love to have a close look at the gum and offer my own "independent opinion".

ebay buyer ..... there is an offer for you.
.

Sold to Simon Dunkerley for $25,100

_________________
Always on the lookout for Australian pre decimal First Day Covers.

Here are a couple of stampcollectorboz "Superb" Roos.

viewtopic.php?t=5631

......


"SUPERB MLH - Retail $150 - $200"

(Real retail about $20 from a real dealer.)

======================



10/- Roo Acsc 48B~SG43a 3rd Wmk MNH SUPERB - (Start price $US899.99)

TRULY A FANTASTIC STAMP. A BEAUTIFUL and faultless stamp.

=================

Yep, a "Superb MUH" 10/- indeed.

Glen
.

http://www.stampauctionnetwork.com/F/f8914.cfm#28

It sold for US$15,000. Presumably plus commission. Any idea what the exchange rate was at the time?

_________________
Always on the lookout for Australian pre decimal First Day Covers.

Glen,



I did - you sold it to someone else!!!!

Clive

and there were two bidders!!!

that was a very nice stamp.

Wonder what it would have looked like on the usual white background ?

That one would have looked nice on black or white.

stampcollectorboz seems to only use white backgrounds when offering badly off centred stamps, as it makes them look less appalling to the newbie ebay bunny bidders when he calls then "SUPERB" and "WELL CENTRED".

This recent perfs touching hinged monster below, was called "SUPERB", and he "forgot" to mention the totally ripped off corner per of course, but he did mention this ridiculous fib: "retail is $150-$200" - what a con-man - I'd gladly take $20 for it, as would most real dealers:

It looks very much like in the reverse shot, that 4 of the top perfs are heavily thinned as well. "Superb" indeed.

......

.

Yeah that orange roo was a shocker and put on a white background ON PURPOSE to conceal it's faults.

Unfortunately there are plenty of other defective stamps put on a white background on purpose by this seller to lessen the appearance of faults.

This practice would make me nervous about spending money with him.

It will be interesting to hear any comments Simon wants to share about his purchase when his new roo arrives.

I am sure Simon has seen it in it's past life, and feels it is OK.

I sure hope he paid with paypal and got the 24,000 Qantas points.
.

Just goes to show that premium items can be successfully sold on EBay. That was certainly a lovely stamp!

_________________
KGV tragic

Even more interesting to see the 55(v)q with red dot having to be doubled at least from $12500+ var in the next ACSC ! .... very very interesting?

However, I'm sure it won't be a problem. I'll pencil my catalogue in.

As with a lot of UK dealers', as I witnessed at Public Auction last month, where GB was going at double retail on all better, such large items are bought to tuck away for various reasons, some collect, or for tax reasons.

Ahem.

_________________
I am NOT the pom!

Wow!! What a trick!! The white background tactic is quite deceptive. You guys have very good eyes. EBay should employ you guys to screen through stamp auction items so they can build up their credibility for selling stamps on their auction site.

_________________
Stamper12

1910-12 German South Polar Expeditions

For those that are interested, I know the history of this stamp well and have written an article for an upcoming issue of Stamp News covering this stamp and various aspects on prices for the first wmk £2, together with a comparison on the highest price I am aware of for the £1 at $18,640 (and for a stamp that was not perfect!). I have probably seen more of these stamps than most, however, for both denominations in first watermark am yet to see a 100% perfectly centred MUH stamp in perfect condition. I cannot say they do not exist, however, I do know that in my travels and searching over the last 30 years, I have never seen such a stamp.

Here is an extract from the draft article:

'£2 First watermark - An Australian 'blue-chip' stamp'

In both the collecting and trading of quality stamps, sometimes you see an item that you never forget, and for me, the £2 'Jet-black and rose illustrated in figures 1 and 2 (reverse) is a gem that falls into this category. It is seldom that the first watermark £2 appears in genuine mint never hinged condition, and even less so in superb condition with no faults of any kind. This stamp is exactly that, and, although not 'geometrically' centred, taking everything into account it is the finest example of this issue that I have seen offered on the market.

I had the pleasure of selling this stamp on behalf of a collector at the 'Sydpex 88' exhibition in Sydney, and, almost exactly twenty years later have now handled it for a second time, after being instructed to bid for it on behalf of a client in a recent sale on eBay. It is very seldom that I find a 'big ticket' item that attracts my bidding on eBay. Indeed, the next highest item I have bid on - and on that occasion just missed out on, was a recently discovered example of KGV single watermark inverted 4d olive at $US12,400 against a winning bid of $US12,500. It was sold by a collector from Uruguay, and there were some 'security/safety' concerns in the sending process that resulted in me reducing my bid a little from what it would have been. However, on this more recent occasion, I was fortunate to be the successful bidder. With a final bid price of $AU25,100 as far as I am aware, this is the highest price paid for an Australian stamp on eBay. I would be very interested to hear if any reader of Stamp News is aware of a higher priced Australian item selling in a normal eBay auction.

In terms of valuing a first watermark £2 in choice mint never hinged condition, the most recent comparison at public auction comes from the Arthur Gray sale conducted by Shreves in New York (22-23 February 2007), where lot number 274 (figure 4), offered as a mint never hinged example of this stamp sold for a hammer price of $US15,000 to an Australian dealer. With the 15% buyer's premium at the prevailing exchange rate at that time, this was equal to $AU22,115. Allowing for GST, if it was sold within Australia, the price would need to have been $A24,327 in order for the successful bidder to break even. Only a price above that would have resulted in a profit. In the 'current' edition of the ACSC, this stamp catalogues $12,500 (not including GST), however, for quality examples, the market has moved up considerably since then, and there is every indication that it will continue to rise. It must be emphasised that in order to fetch such prices that the level of quality is crucial. In relation to colour, overall freshness and perforations, the example above is quite superior to the Gray example.

... end of extract ... for the entire article make sure you read Stamp News!

Finally, with regard to pricing for the ACSC, yes I am involved in that as a consultant, and have been since 1988. Any allegation that prices are 'rigged' according to what certain individuals might have in stock is totally untrue. As stated above, even though not geometrically centred, this is a premium stamp, however, the price that such items sell for either on eBay, at Public auction or by retail do not dictate future catalogue prices. The catalogue prices are pitched for fine examples. As with retail price lists, very fine to superb examples are then worth a premium - maybe up to 50% in some cases, whilst certainly a higher % in others. Any ultimate decision on such matters is in the hands of the catalogue publisher and not other individuals.

Simon Dunkerley

Simon as I stated above, I knew you'd seen the stamp and knew what you were buying.

Whether King Kong sold it, or Joanne620 or Max Stern.

My comment still remains that at the auction we both attended in NYC the price on the day with commissions added was around $A22,000 and not $A24,000 as stated in the usual Bozic ebay hyperbolic selling mantra.

"THE LAST ONE SOLD FOR JUST OVER $24,000 IN ARTHUR GREY'S AUCTION AT SHREEVES IN NEW YORK FEBRUARY 2007 LOT No 274." is, and remains, misleading fiction, to any ebay bidder not familiar with the real facts.

What occurred to it after auction is moot, and totally irrelevant, and does not alter the sum paid to Shreves. The buyer could have lit a cigarette with it on 5th Avenue if he wished, but the bill from Shreves to him for that light was A22K not A24K.

You and I both agreed in NYC we would use that day's official exchange rate of .78 when both quoting AUCTION prices in $A in the media. That was the true rate, and that was the only fair and honest way to report $A prices paid.

Neither of us had any idea if that rate would go up on down in coming months.

Glen
.

I agree with that and quote the exact price using the same $0.78 at $AU22,215. Importantly, I add the proviso that any GST registered dealer buying it would have to sell it within Australia including GST for $AU24,327 in order to break even. There is a good argument that the latter price should be used for comparisons on a domestic sale.

Of course the same rule with the GST factor applied to everything that we all purchased there - unless it was subsequently exported!

The fact that the $AU improved after the sale reduced the final cost for those that were able to delay payment. I agree though, that the fact remains as to what the sale price on the day of the auction was.

Simon but even a dealer buying an item for $A10,000 in NYC could have elected to give it as a tip to a busty waitress at Altantic city .. or the Stage Door Cafe on Broadway ..... there is no compulsion to re-sell it - here or anywhere.
.

_________________
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

For trivia fans these are never before seen photos I took of Simon's first ever Pastrami sandwich order - which he did not eat.

It was at the Stage Door Deli in the very early am in downtown Manhattan.

The other photo is Arthur Gray been consoled by the waitress, as somehow after 15 or so Guinness's so far that evening, he had poured salt all over his foot high stack of flapjacks, assuming it was sugar! Or Maybe it was Chilli sauce assuming it was Maple Syrup, but it sure made a mess.

Simon might recall better, but I think this was late AFTER Day 2 of the sale where Arthur's Roos were sold for over $7 million.

Did Arthur shout dinner I hear some of you say after his $7+ million sale .. well only the 4 of us will know.

An exhaustive 6 page report on the sale, and dozens of more colour dealer photos is at:

http://www.glenstephens.com/arthur-gray-kangaroos.html








.

Looks like this thread might get some publicity

Cool

Here are some other threads that are interesting:

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=6878

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=5631

I can confirm that I have picked up the £2 first watermark from stampcollectorboz at his office and it is in exactly the same superb condition as the day that I sold it in 1988.

Mod - Dead link deleted

It is indeed a magnificent stamp, and as I have since written for Stamp News, I believe is the finest example of this stamp in mint never hinged condition with a variety that I have seen. It is indeed a superb stamp.

In our discussions, we touched on the subject of the 4d orange kangaroo with the faulty corner that has been getting a significant battering above and in other places on stampboards since that auction closed more than two months ago.

Mod - Dead link deleted

Stampcollector boz has shown me that in setting up similar items he uses templates and I understand that in this case the scan was not changed to match the description of stamp. I was informed that the mistake was discovered when Boz received an email in the last 12 hours of the auction from an ebayer advising him that the description did not match the scan. As is well known, in the last 12 hours of an auction, sellers are blocked by ebay from making any changes to, or cancel the auction. In the last 15 minutes before the auction ended, Boz sent a message to the leading bidder 'dc10red' who ultimately became the winning bidder - advising him that the scan was of the wrong stamp that had sold several weeks before. I am told that it was agreed that the auction sale would be cancelled and no invoice be issued. Accordingly a 'value fee credit' was agreed to by both parties, and clearly shown on ebay as a finalised matter.

I have to say that I am sometimes surprised that people make comments on such matters without first finding out what actually happened or asking if a mistake has been made. It should be noted that unlike many sellers on ebay, boz does offer a 30 day refund policy if the buyer is not happy for any reason, and beyond 30 days by prior arrangement.

As a footnote to this comment, I would also like to add that some of the comments above on the 3rd wmk 10/- might be a bit premature. Yes, I agree that with the so-called 'gum zoning' I would not call the stamp superb, however, I do not believe that anyone can be sure the stamp is not MUH from the scan. I certainly would not declare it as hinged from the scan as the section that might appear as a hinge could well be due to a lack of toning rather than a hinge. I understand boz is getting the stamp back so that it can be expertised.

Simon Dunkerley

Simon, I read your posts with interest, and usually agree with you.

In this case, however, it seems to me you have swallowed a line of pure BS.

The use of a template does not explain the ridiculous claims of retail value for the stamp. Nor does it explain the deliberate (IMHO) use of a white background to disguise a major fault which renders the stamp below collectible grade. (I notice that he used a black background for the nice two pound value.)

If you imagine sitting at your desk with a new example of a stamp and you update the description of a previous item to relate to the new stamp and then forget to then update the scan it is quite possible to make such a mistake. I have indeed done it myself on occasions and only realised it several days later.

I am not commenting on the retail values, as the new stamp may indeed be better or worse than the previous one, however, it is indeed quite easy to make such a mistake.

The main reason for my comments on the 4d and 10/- stamps above is that I believe it is reasonable for anyone commenting on such topics to find out the reality of the situation first rather than just making a comment based on appearances that are often not correct.

In the case of the 10/- I have seen the stamp before and although my memory is that it was mint never hinged - with overall toning except for one section that some say is a hinge. I do not believe the hinged or otherwise status of the gum can be determined from the scan.

Simon Dunkerley

It seems, judging by this and several other instances revealed on StampBoards, that he must make a lot of mistakes. Funny how they seem to always overstate the market value, never the other way.

I'm not buyin' it.

Fool me once, shame on you,
Fool me twice, shame on me.

I disagree totally Simon. 110%. Make that 200%.

If you cannot agree this stamp has had a large rectangular hinge removed from it, and has pencil writing on the gum, you surely are not looking at the same item that I am?

Neither were mentioned in the absurdly deceptive (IMHO) ebay write-up:

Mod - Dead link deleted


MNH SUPERB

TRULY A FANTASTIC STAMP. A BEAUTIFUL and faultless stamp.

This one, stampcollectorboz cannot come up with the super convenient "Wrong Photo" excuse after the heat is upon him, as the very day this scan above was posted up on stampboards, and all here agreed it clearly had been hinged, he cancelled that ebay lot number auction that we linked to here, and re-listed with a new lot number, clearly to hope folks lost the scent track - listed again also at $US899.99, and also still stating it was "SUPERB MUH".

If you think that was a totally innocent co-incidence - you are of course entitled to your opinion.

If you believe that was correct and ethical behavior, from an ebay seller than has nothing to hide, you are also entitled to your opinion.

I know what mine is, and remains.

This stamp in believe any person with a functioning set of eyes can see was previously hinged, and has pencil notes on the gum.

Members here - including an FIP accredited International Judge stated the stamp was obviously previously HINGED. None of us needs to view the stamp to see the evidence of previous hinging.

However if slinger49 cares to mail it to me Registered Post I'll give him (or whomever the current owner is) a detailed written opinion - free of charge.

Seeing you appear to be stampcollectorboz's spokesperson here, (many wonder why he has never joined up here himself in his real name to explain himself?) can you advise us whether he has refunded slinger49 the $US899.99 that was paid for this wrongly described dog? And if so - WHEN? Before or after the recent publicity.

Simon - and as an aside, which directly relates to the credibility of this seller John Bozic .. would you agree this statement he has made on every ebay description in 2008 is quite false? And has been for pretty much all of this year? (Memo to self - it is now August 2008.)

"I am also a member .... of the Australian Commonwealth Collectors Club of NSW (ACCC of NSW)"

You are a member, and I am a member, so both of us know the truth here.

Bozic also accepts paypal by "prior arrangement", in total contravention of the ebay rules as you'd know. Australian Sellers MUST accept paypal - no questions asked.

Please email stampcollectorboz@gmail.com if you have any other payment enquiries or to suggest other payment methods such as pay pal etc. Suggested methods of payment only by prior arrangement.

Back to the stamp "guarantee" -- your old favourite seller joanne620 also offers a full refund if buyers are not satisfied. We have both written about that crook in the past, and HIS (not her) outrageous 3rd rate dogs offered as "superb".

(He has these 2 up right now as "MAGNIFICENT" and "SUPERB")



The current ebay Australia stamp forgers have ALWAYS offered a full refund too, if buyer is not happy. We've had 15 of their accounts closed for selling forged stamps. So far.

How useful is a "guarantee" when you have bought off a fake name, with a fake PO box number, who have cleared off with your money in the meantime? No WAY will ebay or paypal help you out.

So of course offering a "full refund" to bunny ebay buyers is a great tactic, as many of them are totally clueless as we all know. And hence 1 stamp in 100 - maybe - will ever be returned. That way the sellers end up with 100% feedback and hardly ever refund anyone.

All the seller is doing is taking a ~1% cost to him insurance policy, that he will end with 100% feedback at all times. And can cheerfully sell all kinds of cr*p in the process.

This 10/- roo in question was sold 2 months back - as:

No returns after 30 days, unless by prior arrangement.

You now tell us the pubic spokesperson it seems for stampcollectorboz, that: "I understand boz is getting the stamp back so that it can be expertised" Clearly due to the searchlight stampboards.com has shone on this stamp?

So in THAT case he is prepared - 2 months after the sale, to consider a refund, to hopefully squirm out of this one too?

Maybe he should change his ebay guarantee wording to read:

No returns after 30 days, unless by prior arrangement - or unless stampboards catches me red handed, offering mis-described stamps.

And the only person is Australia AFAIK that will charge a fee and certify original gum - or otherwise, is Simon Dunkerley - who has stated above he has seen the stamp before and believes it to be MUH.

What came first .. the chicken or the egg?
.

nahhhup ... I don't buy it...

Sure the wrong scan might have been used on the orange roo but what about all the other (and there have been HEAPS) listings with terribly off centre crap described as SUPERB.

I'm sure someone with ability to churn through the number of listings he does and for the dollar values involved has the capability to scan on to black.

Failure to do so isn't a 'set up problem' or a 'template glitch'. It is done by choice.

White backgrounds make it harder to see what you're buying. White backgrounds are used by choice by this seller.

Making it difficult for a buyer to see what they are getting but then describing it as a "BEAUTY" or similar, is unethical in any language.

Why would you choose to scan a superb stamp on a white background? Everyone knows that a black background makes your good stamps look even better.

_________________
I really should be doing something else...

NO KIDDING????

Perhaps apparent party spokesman Simon Dunkerley might like to chime in, and tell us this 3rd grade current item called:

---------------

9d Roo Acsc 27A~SG39 Violet 3rd WMK MLH LOVELY

NICE AND FAULTLESS. MELBOURNE MARKET $75~$100.

Mod - Dead link deleted

--------------

Is an alleged "wrong photo" as well???????????

And John tried desperately to change it, but his account was hacked into for the 4th time, and he was NARU'd from ebay yet again for absolutely no reason?

Bozic KNOWS the Juzwin retail for WELL CENTRED is $75 - GST included.

Bozic KNOWS the published Juzwin retail for OFF centred is half that - i.e. $37 - GST included.

So why does he knowingly LIE and say Juzwin retail is "$75-$100 for such ugly cr*p grade?

A lot of issues and comments have been raised since my comments above were posted - some of the responses are relevant to my comments and some of them are not; some of the responses are accurate and some of them are not.

1. I did not state that the 10/- is mint never hinged. What I said was that to comment on the hinged or otherwise status of the gum from the scan is premature and not something that I would do.

My recollection from when I did previously see the stamp in passing (when it was previously sold in a public auction) is that it was MNH; but that unlike others I would not comment further without seeing the stamp again. I believe that to do otherwise is not the best approach. Quite apart from this item, I often see people making comments on their perception(s) from a scan that are almost certainly inaccurate and wonder why they do it. There are some things that can safely be commented on from a scan, and others that realistically cannot be accurately commented on.

2. I do not agree that the 'whiter' area that might appear to be a hinge remainder/trace or whatever can be verified as such from the scan. I have seen toning or lack of in all shapes and sizes over the reverse of a stamp and this has nothing to do with whether the stamp is hinged or not. That is another entirely different issue. My experience tells me that a careful examination of the stamp itself is indeed a wiser approach and that is what I am hoping for in the near future.

3. I clearly stated in the first instance that I would not call the stamp superb. That has been there for everyone to read from the start - so my comments are not biased in any way except towards the truth as it is known, or hoping to find out the truth in relation to the hinged or otherwise status of the gum on the 10/- stamp.

4. I am not sure at what point of time pencil annotation(s) on the reverse of a stamp meant it could not be called MNH or changed the value of the stamp?

I have written in the past about the so-called guarantee markings on the reverse that are widely used in Europe and that I do not like them. In many cases they are merely a dealers identifying mark and have nothing to do with the authenticity or otherwise of the stamp. In other cases they are related to the latter. Either way, I personaly do not like them and believe that they reduce both the desirability and value of a mint stamp with gum whether it be hinged or not.

However, I do not believe a light pencil annotation is such a problem. In most instances they can easily be removed if desired.

5. I am certainly not 'boz's' spokesman, and if I do get to see the 10/- stamp - as I hope I do, will issue a certificate on it, and would be happy to report the results here. In addition, in order to avoid any possible allegation of bias, I will obtain the opinion(s) of at least one other respected specialist Australian dealer before such a process is completed.

6. Yes, 'joanne620' did sell quite a few stamps that I certified as regummed and I personaly spent many hours getting PayPal to enforce refunds of approx $A5,000 for one client who had bought 19 items described as MUH from him of which 18 were regummed and the other was hinged.

7. The 30 day refund is more than the majority of APTA, PTS, ASDA (USA) or APS dealer members normally advertise or generally offer; although I believe if it were tested in the courts that we would all be required to give refunds on incorrectly described items over a much longer time frame than that.

8. I am not the only one expertising gum as I believe that Chris Ceremuga also offers opinions on the status of the gum on his certificates.

9. As a regular viewer of items at 'professional' stamp auctions, I often see items that I believe are incorrectly described - sometimes in respect to their categorisation and sometimes their condition. The same applies on ebay and just like when you read through an auction catalogue, any reader can make their own judgement on whether a stamp is centred as described or not, and whether the retail value quoted is accurate or not. Such aspects are not rocket science and I do believe that accuracy in such matters is a wise choice on the part of the seller. In any instance, the scan should always be an integral part of the description and to not consider that is a mistake on the part of the buyer.

Simon Dunkerley

It's the listings like these that bug me. And the majority of his listings have been like this.

He obviously has plenty of stamp knowledge but still persists with misleading images and descriptions as above.

If any other dealer, be it car, real estate or whatever else did this they'd be labelled a crook for trying to mislead buyers.

_________________
I really should be doing something else...

stampcollectorboz only seems to want to refund once we highlight his frequent deliberately deceptive listings.

Some fine and outstanding ethics of convenience.

Maybe Simon can give him a cert on that current 9d Auction Roo - "LOVELY, NICE, FAULTLESS" - as to the centering and grade, and whether retail is in fact "$75-$100" for this true Bozic GEEEEEEMMMMMM?

Simon might say of course, you can't judge anything without seeing it though. Even huge square hinge marks, or atrocious centering.

This stamp may well be perfectly centred when examined in the flesh.

Anything is possible, I have to agree. None of us have eyesight THAT good.
.

What do members think about the issue of the integrity of making statements that are not backed up by fact. It seems that some might appear happy to do that at times whilst others prefer to check the facts in sufficient detail first ...

(1) Near the very top of this thread, one writer said he thought the stamp I later bought above was hinged and then changed his mind in the same post all based on the one scan of the reverse of the stamp ...

(2) Another has said that 'boz' only seems to want to refund when an item is highlighted on stampboards ... that is an implied claim that would be difficult to prove or disprove without detailed 'inside knowledge'. I certainly don't have the information to either confirm or deny such a statement ...

(3) Others have said that the 3rd watermark 10/- discussed above is hinged based on a scan that I would be very careful about making any such statement on. As I said above, the area that at first appears to be a hinge is the only part of the stamp that is not toned - whether any trace of a hinge remains in that area, part of that area or elsewhere on the stamp is entirely another issue and can only be confirmed or denied by an examination of the stamp. I believe that to comment otherwise without first seeing the stamp is not a responsible approach.

Another issue of concern would be the introduction of sarcasm into the discussion as seen above. I believe that to compare the interpretation of centring from a scan - which is clearly visible for all to see and causes absolutely no problem, with the way the 10/- scan should be interpreted does not contribute to an intelligent discussion of the issues at hand.

A third issue is the misquoting of others ... either deliberately or by accident. Once again, surely it is best to check the facts first.

An intelligent philatelic discussion is best made without the undue influence of such issues ... and I hope that others might agree with this.

Simon - I still disagree 105%.

This stamp had a thick old-style hinge on it for decades .

The gum around it has yellowed - probably from plasticiser gases leaching from a Hawid Stockcard. Ask Alf Campe about those.

This big square hinge finally gets peeled off, and you have 2 different colours on the gum.

One is a light colour square, and the balance of the stamp is darker where the heavy hinge was NOT.

Like wearing bathers on a long sunny day. You will sunburn where the bathers were not.

Well this got "suntanned" - where the hinge was NOT. IMHO.

Total no brainer to me. My eyes are pretty good.

That stamp was NEVER MUH - for the past several decades at least. IMHO.

You make no comment whatever of the related deceitful practice of pulling the sale of this stamp the day it was pointed out here, and re-listing it wording unchanged - and selling it to that bunny buyer for $US899.99. (For reference - I sold a far better looking 10/- 3rd MLH this week for HALF the price.)

And now 2 months AFTER that deceptive action, and some publicity of it stampcollectorboz mysteriously has a rush of blood to the head, to send it to you to be "Expertised", when you already say in writing it appears possibly MUH. To you.

EVERY person posting on the matter has stated it appears hinged to them. From senior FIP International Judges down. We may of course all be totally wrong.

To that end, I'll be fascinated to see your Cert posted here as promised, and/or one from any other reputable independent Expert Committee, I believe you said will also pass judgment, that this stamp IS - or is NOT - "SUPERB MUH".

Whomever adds their name (if anyone does) to such a "SUPERB MUH" Cert wording would lose a massive amount of credibility, would be my humble guess. And seeing it in the flesh is entirely un-necessary - in my view. It is a plain as day already.

But my offer remains to stampcollectorboz - mail it to me Registered Mail and he will get a FREE written photo opinion on it from me. Can't be fairer than that.

I have as much or more experience in roos and original gum, as anyone else he likely plans to mail it to.

Once again I have been misquoted. From the outset I declared that I would not call the stamp superb. No stamp with the toning that this exhibits could rightfully be called superb; and of course no certificate should call it superb; that is a no-brainer. That is not the issue I am discussing here. Nor am I speculating on why the stamp might have been taken off and relisted.

The issue I raised in relation to this stamp was whether it is indeed MUH or not, and whether in this instance the perceptions gained from the scan might be miseading or not. Many a time members make comments that may or may not be correct based on scans or even just their own perceptions per se, and I am more interested in establishing the facts on this than just following what others have written about the stamp. Not having studied the specific requirements to become an F.I.P. judge, I have no idea if that in any way qualifies anyone to give a meaningful opinion on the gum of a stamp based on a scan or indeed even on an examination of the stamp itself. Issues such as that might even make an interesting discussion topic!

Once again, I am more interested in establishing the facts on the true status of the gum on this stamp than merely following a 'pack mentality' on what may or may not be correct.

SimonDunkerley wrote:

In the case of the 10/- I have seen the stamp before and although my memory is that it was mint never hinged - with overall toning except for one section that some say is a hinge. I do not believe the hinged or otherwise status of the gum can be determined from the scan.

Simon Dunkerley

SimonDunkerley wrote:

I do not believe that anyone can be sure the stamp is not MUH from the scan. I certainly would not declare it as hinged from the scan as the section that might appear as a hinge could well be due to a lack of toning rather than a hinge.

Simon Dunkerley

---------------------

Simon do you agree these above were your own quotes, unedited in any way re the hinging - or otherwise on this stamp above? If so how were you "Misquoted"???

If you agree you did type these comments, for the third time, I disagree with your points in them 105%. Re those comments, not any other comments - so we can't get side-tracked here.

That's the wonderful thing about debate, there are often 2 sides.

I am saying, and indeed others are saying, a large square stamp hinge has been peeled off the 10/-, and that is very clearly evident on the scan.

I may be too conservative, but to me that does not make this stamp "MUH".

You do not agree that previous hinging is evident from the scan, and that's fine with me, and you are fully entitled to that opinion. Just please do not say you were "misquoted" about it. You were not IMHO.

We are allowed to take different positions - whether on John Bozic's "hinged but not hinged" high price Roo, or on AFL matches. (And sadly I tipped Adelaide aganist the Saints this weekend so you are one up!)

If Richard Juzwin, or I, or you, or any other real dealer ran that photo of that terrible 9d Roo above, with that alleged retail price, on a regular basis, we'd be tossed out of all the trade bodies we belong to for deliberate misdescription - do you agree?

Let Bozic state the TRUE retail value for that centering. THEN if some dope pays more - well too bad for the buyer.

It will not then be the fault of stampcollectorboz in any way, and his name would likely never appear here, or in print. End of story.

As I typed in my last article he does offer some nice stamps, and just let the stamps sell themselves on their merits. If they are nice they will sell well. If it is lightly hinged -- CALL it lightly hinged. How tough is that to do?

Fibbing outrageously about alleged retail, or stating things are "SUPERB" or "wonderfully centred" or "MUH" when they are clearly not (to me and others), just encourages many potential buyers to stay away - many folks have told me that as a FACT.

Huffing and puffing behind the scenes about stampboards and Glen Stephens etc, gets him absolutely nowhere, except loses him even more credibility and clients I'd suggest. The: "where there is smoke there is fire" human reaction.

John Bozic seems to resent being "mentioned in dispatches." The solution to that is totally in his hands. The quick way to stop that occurring is keep taking the advice he appears to have recently heeded - if the info I have heard is correct, that his stated "retail" prices might now bear some close resemblance to what dealers like Juzwin really change, and count the 50% OFF for horrid centering into that.

If that is true, it is great to hear, and I'll be the first to applaud it, if it occurs on an ongoing basis. That will be good news for the Australian stamp hobby, if buyers are better informed before bidding and will not often lose their shirts when they re-sell mis-described high value stamps.

Boards like this can then forget all about him, and focus on the real problem of the local forgery gang who still seem active on ebay, and others who are scamming collectors with fakes etc.

Let Bozic sell his Roos accurately described, and he will fade forever from these boards I feel sure. HIS choice - not ours.

Glen
.

Yes, I agree that I wrote those comments and stand by them. I have already stated above that although it is my memory that the 10/- stamp was MUH (based on a passing look at it when previously sold at public auction), however that I certainly need to see it again in order to offer any realistic opinion on it.

It has been right through and remains my view in this instance because of the way the stamp is toned that the scan is not sufficient to form an accurate view of the status of the gum. With some or indeed many stamps that might be possible, however, with regard to this stamp I believe that extra caution is required.

I believe that for you to say that 'I believe you said will also pass judgment, that this stamp IS - or is NOT - "SUPERB MUH".' is not a fair or accurate reflection of my comments.

I have written and agree that I am happy to and hope to be able to examine the 10/- stamp in order for me to issue a certificate on it. Assuming it is able to eventuate, as a part of that process I will get a further respected opinion on the stamp, however, that does not involve the issuing of a second certificate.

I have clearly stated from the outset that I would not call this stamp superb, so I am at a loss as to how you can say or imply that I would even consider describing it as 'SUPERB MUH' on a certificate. I believe that is not an accurate reflection of my comments on this item.

In reference to another issue, I have clearly stated above that 'There are some things that can safely be commented on from a scan, and others that realistically cannot be commented on.' ... hence I believe that to state or imply the following in relation to the 9d 3rd watermark are not realistic reflections of my comments:

'Simon might say of course, you can't judge anything without seeing it though ... This stamp may well be perfectly centred when examined in the flesh... Anything is possible ...'

On reflection, wouldn't you agree that such comments do not help direct the debate, and indeed somewhat sidetrack it?

I am all in favor of a healthy, informed and robust debate and agree that everyone is entitled to their view on such issues. I also believe that no one has all the answers and that one of the ultimate aims of a good debate should be to determine the truth if that is not already on the table.

Simon Dunkerley

Why? Because John Bozic is selling it, suddenly for some reason the very clear photo can't tell us?

Fair enough.

Well this scan below another member did much smaller than actual stamp size.

Even from that I can CERTAINLY see a hinge, and I have offered to give a free appraisal on it, if mailed to me Registered Post.

It seems like you are offering an appraisal on it when mailed to you. Fair is fair. If this seller has nothing to hide, he will not mind one bit I am sure getting another expert opinion - mine.

There is no way on God's earth a straight mylar strip line from a stock-card can make a perfect U shape hinge sized mark on a stamp, in my 30 years of experience - but I could as always be wrong.

Well, extra terrestrial beings might have done it as a joke I suppose.

My question remains - and is the only thing really germane to this discussion really, as STAMP COLLECTING will be the only loser here -- has the schmuck who paid $US899.99 months back been refunded on this yet?

Or does your, and my opinion determine that course?

This is not a sudden thing; it has been my position from the outset that I have concerns about what the scan might appear to show and that the stamp needs to be looked at.

You might choose not to believe it, however, the ownership, seller or history of this stamp have nothing to do with why I believe this stamp needs careful consideration as above. My comments are purely based on the technical issues as to how it is toned and how that might have happened. My position on this would be the same regardless of who has/was or is selling the stamp. That is not the issue.

I agree with the essence of your comments on how some stamps exhibit toning in horizontal or vertical 'bands' in general terms as it most commonly happens. A lot of this is seen in climates such as that of Sydney and further north.

I do not know what makes you think this stamp has ever had a 'straight mylar strip' behind it. I certainly do not know what it has had behind it. Indeed, any speculation as to what it might or might not have had behind it is purely academic and doesn't really matter. What I do know is that because the toning is present on the sides of the white section that whatever it was did not go fully across the stamp. The degree of and shape/format of such toning will vary according to the shape and/or position of what ever it was behind the stamp.

I have seen examples of stamps where an owner has cut a piece of paper or other material narrower than the stamp, written an annotation on it and placed it behind and partially above the stamp. The result in some instances has been toning over the rest of the stamp and a white section where the paper overlaps the reverse of the stamp. I have seen the same in blocks, and even covers - and in a variety of shapes and sizes.

My point is that in these latter instances, the 'untoned section' can sometimes at first glance appear to be a hinge trace. However, we know that not all is as it first appears! And unlike some, I would prefer to judge such things by an examination of the stamp rather than a scan or photo. If that proves to be a hinge, then so be it. However, I still do not believe the scan by itself proves it is a hinge. As we know, scans or photos can be quite deceptive in both directions. Sometimes a stamp will appear better in real life and sometimes it will appear worse.

At this point, I think it might be wise to reserve any further judgement or comment until the stamp is examined in the flesh - and I hope that this can be done sooner rather than later. Then I will be more than happy to report the findings here, and just to be clear, that will apply regardless which way the result goes.

I do not know, nor have discussed whether this might lead to a refund or not.

Simon Dunkerley

Simon .. I do agree with you that the ONLY thing that could leave this large square U shaped mark precisely where a hinge ordinarily resides, is a VERY nearly cut piece of paper.

And yes I do agree that some collectors do make notes on such tiny pieces of paper. Almost always placed to one side of the stamp, as a descriptor tab, but I agree it is a very remote possibility it went behind.

It is most unusual for such notes to be stored behind the stamp, and especially to stay precisely in place there, for the decades it would usually take for the rest of the gum to evenly tone all around it, as this has.

And in my long experience whenever tiny notes ARE behind the stamp they go right to base of stamp, as is totally logical, and do not start half way up.

However, that I will agree is the only possible reason such a mark might have occurred. The lighter U shape mark is most certainly there, and that is my experience is 99% consistent with a stamp hinge being removed. We shall see.

I do hope it is forwarded to me to for inspection in due course. And I imagine there is no question that a full refund will be made to slinger49 if it does prove to be a hinge mark.

Glen
.

Simon,

re your quote,



The comment was made without a Judges hat on and made as a personal comment after seeing the scan and 55 years involved with philately.

Of course judges are not interested in whether stamps are mint unhinged or even plastered with 50 hinges, that is more the commercial side of stamp collecting and not philately although if a rare stamp was being shown which claimed to be mint and the group judging the exhibit had thoughts about it then it is possible that the stamp should be examined to verify the statements. This has never occurred as far as I know but there is a proviso for it.

I still believe from seeing the scan that it has been hinged and I agree with you that a definite statement cannot be made without actually sighting the item.

It may help if the actual description used when the item was sold at public auction was located as their describer would have closely looked at the item to determine whether it was unhinged or not.


David B.

As I noted back on 2nd August:

'In the case of the 10/- I have seen the stamp before and although my memory is that it was mint never hinged - with overall toning except for one section that some say is a hinge. I do not believe the hinged or otherwise status of the gum can be determined from the scan.'

As promised above to stampboards, I am reporting the findings about this stamp ... and the stamp has proven to be mint never hinged.

The following two scans are a good representation of the appearance of the stamp from both the front and the reverse ... and I must say that in the flesh, the toning is not particularly obvious when the stamp is looked at in normal daylight. Yes, it is there, however, it is not as severe as some might have expected.





Rather than merely seeking a second opinion before issuing my certificate, the stamp has now been issued two separate certificates, both stating it is mint never hinged:

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x234/ausphil07/3rdWmk10sMUHcertsx2.jpg

It should also be noted that the scan below does not give a good representation of the stamp - the toning is barely visible compared to this final picture.

Indeed, I can add that I have often seen stamps with more toning than this example has offered at public auction and with no fault described. If it were not for the fact that a section of the stamp is not toned, many would not even mention it.



As I stated from the outset, it was my recollection that this stamp was mint never hinged, and that has proven to be the case.

Simon Dunkerley

Personally, I blame the Martians for creating the toned area "except for the rectangular section in upper half of stamp."

How dare the Martians create a mark that is in the exact position a stamp hinge normally is found on.

I suggest the Martians all get certificates for such stamps in future.

Best chuckle I've had all day.

All my very light hinged and gum toned stock just jumped up 300% in value now, as I can cheerfully use this wording.

I've love to see what a long established, independent Expert COMMITTEE like the BPA, who have never heard of stampboards, or stampcollectorboz, or more importantly. have never sold him a stamp, would make of this same item, if submitted to them.

And I'll almost bet the house that will never be occuring.

(I wonder if the BPA would comment on the apparent attempted erasure of the pencil notations?)

Meanwhile, back to marking up all my light hinge touched stamps ......

Glen
.

As previously stated, to have a section like this where there is no toning is highly unusual, however, it does happen on rare occasions; this being one such case.

Unfortunately, it is a fact that many expertising bodies (including the BPA and Royal of London) do not generally state on the certificates they issue whether a stamp is mint never hinged or hinged. Indeed, they just tend to describe them as 'mint with original gum' (which unfortunately includes never hinged and lightly hinged stamps) or mint with part original gum (heavier hinge or some gum loss or redistribution, etc.) as appropriate. Some even just say 'unused' for mint stamps!

It is my belief that this stamp is mint never hinged and to suggest that there is any bias in the findings is not called for.

Indeed, I have been a casual advisor/consultant to the BPA for well over 10 years for Australian Commonwealth and Colonies items, and do not issue certificates lightly.

To compare this stamp with stamps that have been hinged is not realistic. Each stamp must be considered on its own merits.

Finally, as noted in an earlier post, it is my view that the issue of the pencil marks on the reverse is not of great importance. You often see stamps, either mint or used with pencil notations etc on the reverse and most do not even mention them. Unless the paper has been indented, I do not see this as any kind of problem. It is rare that a pencil mark cannot be removed. On the other hand, as I have said before, I do not like any form of ink 'guarantee/signature' markings on mint or used stamps. Yet in some countries, they will often not buy certain stamps without what they consider to be the appropriate/'required' markings! Each to their own on this one!

Simon Dunkerley

A disgraceful misuse of semantics in order to manipulate &, yes, make money

But at least the whole world can now see how absolutely worthless certificates really are, as they are written by human beings for a whole array of reasons. (Bewilderment, ignorance, self-promotion, selfism, greed .....)

Thankfully, and as most people realise in the stamp fraternity, whether outspoken or secretly, know what certification is and means.

As I have already mentioned here on these boards, more than 1 in 3.14 certed stamps are incorrect.

See viewtopic.php?p=336500&highlight=#336500

It is silly trying to defend the indefensible, except of course, where self-interest is involved, it is only natural.

On the above written statements, can anyone see the "slight" (irony emoticon still not available), contradictions here - especially in the light that Simon can issue his own certs on crap like the above, yet "advises" the majors.

Cheers,

Mitch.

_________________
I am NOT the pom!

So this stamp has a Simon Dunkerly certificate stating;

"mint never hinged... except for rectangular section in upper half of stamp."

This seems to be an accurate statement?

It is also an inverted watermark with the watermark the correct way up.

Ewen

Well - I really have to have a chuckle on this one.

First let me introduce myself to all. I'm Pod - real name's Matt O'Neill. I'm an eBay bunny - that's right, one of the those things that sellers on eBay pray will 'happen' to them. One of the brainless and gullable many that throw money down the dunny by the fist full buying up worthless scrap because we are overwhelmed and can't see beyond the sales banter of those cunning and unscrupulous sellers - and anyway, we really only want fodder for our paper mache.

But since everyone seems to be in the mood, I thought I'd create a little mischief myself...so let's take a step back in time shall we?

I read with some amusement Glen Stephens "Market Matters" in the August 2008 edition of "Stamp News Australasia". Of note were a number of references to "stampcollectorboz".

I'd like to post a few observations, partly in defense of all the "eBay bunnies" that have purchased the odd item from stampcollectorboz - like me - and partly in defense of stampcollectorboz.

Glen - let's call it out. The blokes name is John Bozic and whether you understand it or not you gave Joe public that information when you drew attention to his eBay handle. Even more Glen, the information that John supplies about his interest, affiliations and activities is extremely easily accessed from the eBay site - you don't even have to login to see it (maybe that's a privacy issue for eBay to sort out?). This information also includes his contact phone numbers. I'd also like to note that John Bozic offers a "satisfaction guaranteed" - refund or replacement with his sales...just in case other "eBay bunnies" can't read.

Glen - you talk about this bloke as if he were the archetypical swindler lying in wait to clobber the unsuspecting. Get real! Given the above level of transparency provided by John I'd have to be suspicious that the circumstances you described are misrepresentative of the facts.

Come on Glen give us a break, I would have though that any "eBay bunny" with two brain cells to rub together would have taken up the guarantee offered by John - I did, so what's your problem - lack of postage?

If whomever bought the 10/- roo is not satisfied or feeling insecure about the whole thing (I'm sure if they weren't before this episode they certainly will be by now) - then send the flaming thing back and get a refund!

Matt O'Neill (Singapore)