Welcome! The discussion starts here ...

bjornmu · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:06 pm

Was this QV FIVE POUNDS with a SON form the last day of the 19th century. I must confess I considered trying.... =P~

Sold for ~$2500.

jim whitford-stark · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:27 pm

Bjorn
Depends whether you consider January 1st 1900 or January 1st 1901 as the first day of the 20th century.
In either case, the answer is no.

bjornmu · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:48 pm

Sorry, my "Was this..." was not a question, but a continuation of "Beyond my budget..". In any case, I had confused DE and JA! :oops:

I think the same auction house had a ONE POUND cancelled 1 JA 00 a few years ago. I did bid on this date error but it sold for over $200, way too much for me.

jaumebp · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:26 pm

The stupidest seller on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 5561490065

:lol:

jim whitford-stark · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:28 pm

Now, now, Jaume,
there are many excellent candidates for that award.
Perhaps we should institute stupidest powerseller of the year award
Or stupidest red star and above seller of the year award.

D2 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:51 pm

May as well add the seller of the the North Borneo 10c. Postage Due that was being discussed on Ebay Chat. He had an undisclosed reserve and didn't accept the 155 Pounds bid and then relisted it within minutes of it being unsold.
I contacted him and asked his reserve and he replied it was 150 Pounds. He should have contacted the bidders and tried to organise a private sale (oh, forgot, that is against Ebay's rules),

David B.

Duncan_Doenitz · **Joined:** Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:10 am **Posts:** 373

The March issue of American Philatelist is out, and Jim Griffith has a letter to the editor posted in response to Roger West's recent letter regarding the sale of "Maryland Forgeries" and the products of ATDinvest.

For those who are interested and don't receive the APS American Phiatelist, here is Jim's letter, which was printed under the headline Computer Generated:

Quote:

In the January Letters to the Editor column, Roger West makes a compelling argument for the sale of "Maryland fakes" and similar material ("Buying Forgeries," page 8). Much as I dislike these modern reproductions, I concede that people have as much right to make, sell, and buy them as they do Pez dispensers, Beanie Babies, or any other item to which people have assigned arbitrary value. I'm not comfortable with the way these dealers imply through association that these reproductions are somehow philatelic in nature, but that's a question for wiser men than me.

Here's where I disagree with Mr. West. He may mark them with "forgery" on the back. He may even describe them as "modern reproductions," but why doesn't he actually tell buyers that what they are purchasing is "computer-generated within the last six months"? The answer is obvious - even the most inexperienced collector would never bid in an auction against another bidder for something the seller might produce at virtually no cost in virtually infinite quantity. Such a collector need only wait for the next "printing."

If dealers wish to sell these modern constructs at shows or on websites, accurately described, for whatever price, so be it. But when a dealer fails to identify these items as recently computer generated, or when he encourages buyers to bid against each other for something that can be produced at will at little cost, he is guilty of "false or misleading claims of sales scarcity, value" - a violation of APS ethics.

Jim Griffith
Sunnyvale, California

Well done, Jim. I'd add to that the fact that at least sometimes the forgeries are illegal and so of course an additional violation the the APC code of ethics, with the sellers depending on the cheap nature of the product to avoid prosecution.

I'm just saying...

Dunc

jlawler · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:49 am

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greetings
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and an Indiana "Good Morning"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to you all.

Richard Warren · **Posted:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:23 pm

DD, thanks for posting that. An excellent letter from JG!

joke_boy · **Posted:** Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:26 pm

Do you think I should be worried about finding hits like this in my usage logs?

nwg001-ce1.customs.treas.gov

stamptrader · **Posted:** Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:18 pm

Definitely yes you should!
:!:

jim whitford-stark · **Posted:** Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:12 pm

Jim,

no worries.

US.gov is 23rd most frequent hitter to my web site.
US.mil is 43rd.
haven't recorded any dhs.gov's yet

Dave F. · **Posted:** Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:51 am

I remember that when we were trying to convert to this site from the old one that we had some problems with Federal government site filters, so I'm going to assume that a few people do take a look at things during their lunch breaks.

jlawler · **Posted:** Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:51 am

jim whitford-stark · **Posted:** Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:48 pm

I'm guessing that this is the volcano, Fuego, any ideas???
It's an unused proof from 1935.

joke_boy · **Posted:** Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:11 pm

I learned something new about this stamp thanks to an email that a newbie sent me. She said she had a copy of this stamp, and it was a special copy which has a Star of David hidden in Revel's beard, and she wanted to know what it was worth (I get a lot of "what is this worth?" emails, despite all of the FAQs I've written up). I'd never heard of such a variation, and Scott doesn't list anything, but the woman said "I"ve got a Washington Post article describing these special stamps". So I did a Google search, and it turns out that the engraver who designed the Revel stamp hid a Star of David in Revel's beard, and it wasn't discovered until after it was released. The engraver was suspended for a year for doing it. Anyways, I told the lady that *all* of them have it, and that her stamp technically has a CV of around $2.50, but she should just use it as postage. But I learned something I hadn't known, so I thought I'd pass it along (even though most of you probably already knew this).

stamptrader · **Posted:** Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:54 pm

Jim, thanks for sharing, i did not knew that!

Anne · **Posted:** Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:51 pm

EBAY USERS STAMP CLUB MEETING NOW IN SESSION ON THE EBAY BOARD[/color]

http://chatboards.ebay.com/chat.jsp?thread=28&forum=1&limit=default

TOPIC: REVENUES
-----Do you collect them? Why or why not?

-----What are some of the more unusual uses for revenue stamps?

-----What references do you think are the most useful for revenue stamps?

-----Under what circumstances were postage stamps used as revenues and vice versa?

-----How do you tell the difference between postal and fiscal cancels? Are there any fiscal cancels that are worth as much or more than postal cancels on the same stamp?

(This topic is an advance celebration of the upcoming April 15th income tax deadline in the US. Complaints about the tax systems of various countries will also be considered part of this month's topic)

OTHER BUSINESS: Election of EUSC officers for 2005-2006.

Sheryll · **Posted:** Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:10 am

Sorry this is so late, but just letting those interested know that seller "bmcplock" has been suspended by eBay for a few weeks now. To recap, "bmcplock" was an alternate ID of seller "sappingtonn7", who offered stolen images and description of Tasmanian specimen stamps on 6 Feb.

I also see on the eBay board that seller "hongkong_auction" has been NARU'd, but I can't for the life of me remember why that seller was dodgy.....

Sheryll

Duncan_Doenitz · **Joined:** Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:10 am **Posts:** 373

Thanks for the update, Sheryll.

The bidder who "won" two expensive items from "bmcplock" did not get stuck for the $2000 in bids either. He refused to use the unusual eGold method of payment.

Dunc

jlawler · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:50 am

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greetings
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and an Indiana "Good Morning"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to you all.

cobbie10 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:52 pm

I wonder if I can get some input on my auction below. I've studied this stamp an cannot see the chop which would make this the cheaper stamp. I've had one person email me telling me that it is in fact the cheaper stamp.

Can someone have a look and maybe confirm that it does in fact have the chop ? If so, then I'll take the item down.

Thanks in advance.
Mark.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 5565107103

D2 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:11 pm

cobbie, yes, it has the chop, it is under the cancel but the outline can be seen. It has also been effected by water and has faded. They are the negatives but there is a positive and that is the Red security chop which is highly collectable. Relist or change the description to something like,

HONG KONG, 1891 20c. on 30c. Yellowish Green with large Red Security Chop, faded.

It should still realise about $5.

David B.

stamptrader · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:15 pm

D2, what is a Security Chop :?:

D2 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:01 pm

Mauro, the same as a Perfin but without the holes.

A company marking applied on a stamp to ensure that it is not used unless on official business of the company, in other words to make sure that members of the staff do not use the company's stamps on private correspondence.

That was common practice in many South East Asian countries especially India, Hong Kong, Strait Settlements, Thailand. They are avidly collected especially on cover. Some are common but there are many rarities some of which have been found on Ebay unknown to the seller,

If you have a few hours to spare,

http://rodsell.com/hksmsic/hksmsic.html

and

http://rodsell.com/hksmsic/chinese.html

David B.

cobbie10 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:37 am

D2 wrote:

cobbie, yes, it has the chop, it is under the cancel but the outline can be seen. It has also been effected by water and has faded. They are the negatives but there is a positive and that is the Red security chop which is highly collectable. Relist or change the description to something like,

HONG KONG, 1891 20c. on 30c. Yellowish Green with large Red Security Chop, faded.

It should still realise about $5.

David B.

Many thanks David !! I'll get that changed right away.
Mark.

Colin Judd · **Posted:** Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:43 pm

Even I can see that this :arrow:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3492&item=5565690785&rd=1 is a fake from the faint symbol at the end of the bird's wing. I wonder how many of the others are too? I can't tell from the scans. I wonder if you have any ideas Dave F?

Colin Judd · **Posted:** Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:51 pm

Hi Sheryll

I was careless enough to bid on one of his lots without noticing it was private feedback, and even more careless that I did not check his negatives! I am still waiting for stamps from over 2 months ago that he said were insured, but he does not reply to my many eMails for a refund and for him to claim on the insurance. Not that I have reported him yet.

I was even more remiss in not claiming the Paypal refund before 45 days were gone - he claimed that due to the insured nature of the lot it would take much longer to arrive.

I am so used to sellers being reliable that I was lax. Serve me right, suppose! :cry:

Colin

cobbie10 · **Posted:** Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Colin Judd wrote:

Hi Sheryll

I was even more remiss in not claiming the Paypal refund before 45 days were gone - he claimed that due to the insured nature of the lot it would take much longer to arrive.

I am so used to sellers being reliable that I was lax. Serve me right, suppose! :cry:

Colin

Colin - did you pay using your credit card through Paypal ? If so, then initiate a claim through PP first, which they will deny. You will then be free to go to your CC for a full chargeback on the amount you paid.

Colin Judd · **Posted:** Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:27 pm

Thanks for that Mark

Yes, I used my credit card. I will let them have a bit more time, just in case, but then I will follow your advice. Thanks.

Colin

Anonymous · **Posted:** Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:24 pm

joke_boy wrote:

Do you think I should be worried about finding hits like this in my usage logs?

nwg001-ce1.customs.treas.gov

How about this?:

iz-proxy1.iraq.centcom.mil

Dave F. · **Posted:** Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:33 am

Colin: Well done! You are absolutely right. I've learned that once someone shows you how to look for these characters, then they just jump out at you. (Someday I hope to be so good on the forgeries that don't have these tell-tale characters!)

The International Society for Japanese Philately has now very generously and graciously posted on their website the various positions for the signed forgeries, as this type is called. I'll just link you through to this particular stamp, but obviously a little navigation around will get you to the rest of this excellent section of their website. (These pages are taken from their CD.) As you discerned, the other character was obscured by the cancel, a very common occurence. (Sometimes even both characters are covered. When viewing a stamp in person, you can usually look through the cancel with magnification, but that's not always possibly to do on a scan.)

Are you familiar with the seller? (You're both in the UK, so you must know each other!

) Perhaps a polite note to him, along with the link to the ISJP page, would be helpful. Would you be willing to do so this time? (I'll get it next time.)

Thanks for bringing this up. A great study example!

jlawler · **Posted:** Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:58 am

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greetings
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and an Indiana "Good Morning"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to you all.

Dave F. · **Posted:** Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:41 pm

Colin: I note that the Japanese stamp to which you linked yesterday has in fact been changed. The opening bid is now £0.99, down from its original £25.00. I will go on and credit you for taking the action to create this good deed!

My only concern is that the seller did not modify the description in any way to indicate that it is a known forgery. I'm no longer certain what, if any, is eBay's policy these days, and whether or not it applies to a lot originating in the UK.

But at least the opening bid is more reflective of the "speculative nature" of the stamp, rather than a higher opening bid implying something more about its authenticity.

D2 · **Posted:** Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:56 pm

Dave & Colin, in this case it should be easy to prove that the item is a fake as you have a good web site in English that members of the SWC can refer which perchance is by one the recognised experts and a members of the APS who certifies Japanese material and I presume is a member of the SWC. It should be referred to them and hopefully will be handled no matter where it was listed,

I am about to report it and will let you know if any outcome.

David B.

Stampchat+

Welcome! The discussion starts here ...

Who is online