I agree with most reviewers that this stamp is not authentic. However, I also have an extensive CSA collection where I display certified material along with forgeries for comparison purposes. As such, I wonder if anyone is aware of any background information on this particular item. I would like to include such in my collection alongside a certified Scott #2 similar to what I do for CSA material. To further assist in the assessment process, as suggested by other members, I have attached a higher resolution view that may hopefully will prove helpful toward that end. There is no gum on the back and the paper is rather thick compared to other stamps of that era. In the interim, thanks to all that commented on my earlier post!
Nice pair. You will need a certificate of authenticity to be certain, but if they are be offered without that, your payment ought to be based upon full right of return if they do not pass expert examination. If you're into early U.S., you and I ought to become stamppals. That is my personal area of interest.
It looks like a good fake to me. I highly doubt it's an authentic copy because there is a distinct line at the top that separates both stamps and there is a distinct line at the top left that isn't adjoining the frame line as well. They look drawn in to me because the colors of the lines are darker and crisp. They just don't match the frame lines.
Additionally it isn't a #4 the lips on a #4 are sharp and very crisp. In my opinion you are looking at a fake #2.
As Dan said you will need a certificate of authenticity.
Not Sperati
Sperati #2 is much better
There would be a tiny dash on left side of the frame line in line with the top of the left X
This would normally be an 1875 reproduction distinguished by the right side of the cravat being in line with the left side of the T. The cravat is inline with the middle of the T for the 1847
Those dashes at the top left should not be on the 1875.
On an 1875 strip the edges should be fairly clean, so those blotches between the stamps don't belong
This would appear to be some kind of contrived picture.
I agree with most reviewers that this stamp is not authentic. However, I also have an extensive CSA collection where I display certified material along with forgeries for comparison purposes. As such, I wonder if anyone is aware of any background information on this particular item. I would like to include such in my collection alongside a certified Scott #2 similar to what I do for CSA material. To further assist in the assessment process, as suggested by other members, I have attached a higher resolution view that may hopefully will prove helpful toward that end. There is no gum on the back and the paper is rather thick compared to other stamps of that era.
