Looking Through the Stamp Catalogues (2)

My regard felt this time on the US 1991, Feb. 22, Switzerland 700th
Anniversary. One of the reasons for my interest is obvious, anther one is
that I have somewhere a joint issue FDC with the both US and CH (Sc. 888)
stamps.

What puzzled me is the following text, cited from my Scott 1999 (where the
stamp has the No. 2532):

"a. Vert. pair, imperf horiz. 1,500 (this is the price, for mint - V.M)¨
Imperfs exist from printers' waste."

Now the questions that bother me are, as related to this stamps, a

- Is the selling or distribution of such "waste" legitimate?
- Is the buying and the ownership of such material legally OK?
- If the answer to the first two question is negative, then is the
"popularization" of such material in catalogues legitimate?

TIA.

Victor Manta

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Victor Manta" wrote

What puzzled me is the following text, cited from my Scott 1999 (where the
stamp has the No. 2532):
"a. Vert. pair, imperf horiz. 1,500 (this is the price, for mint - V.M)¨
Imperfs exist from printers' waste."
Now the questions that bother me are, as related to this stamps, a
- Is the selling or distribution of such "waste" legitimate?
- Is the buying and the ownership of such material legally OK?
- If the answer to the first two question is negative, then is the
"popularization" of such material in catalogues legitimate?

I think the catalogue is talking about two different errors.

"Vert. pair, imperf. horiz." implies that this is a pair of normally
perforated stamps, except with one row of perforations missing.
Until very recently many American stamps were line perforated,
so that if the perforating machine missed a row, the result would
be just one row of perforations missing.

"Imperfs. exist from printers' waste" implies that stamps
completely imperforate on all four sides, were not legitimately
issued. Not the same stamps as the ones priced above.

- Dave

Dave Joll wrote:

....skip...

"Imperfs. exist from printers' waste" implies that stamps

completely imperforate on all four sides, were not legitimately
issued. Not the same stamps as the ones priced above.

- Dave

There is a Monaco (Scott #1) imperforate in my collection, but
neither Scott nor Yvert mention it. Is it a printer's waste?

1/9/2004 1:39 AM

My regard felt this time on the US 1991, Feb. 22, Switzerland 700th
Anniversary. One of the reasons for my interest is obvious, anther one is
that I have somewhere a joint issue FDC with the both US and CH (Sc. 888)
stamps.

What puzzled me is the following text, cited from my Scott 1999 (where the
stamp has the No. 2532):

"a. Vert. pair, imperf horiz. 1,500 (this is the price, for mint - V.M)¨
Imperfs exist from printers' waste."

Now the questions that bother me are, as related to this stamps, a

- Is the selling or distribution of such "waste" legitimate?
- Is the buying and the ownership of such material legally OK?
- If the answer to the first two question is negative, then is the
"popularization" of such material in catalogues legitimate?

TIA.

Victor Manta

Most such printer's waste is probably stolen; one wonders whether it was
actually created for illegal sale. While its sale by legitimate dealers
probably is technically illegal, or at best unethical, I'm sure that no law
enforcement agency would bother trying to prosecute such a crime; much more
serious criminal activity is largely ignored by police forces which are not
able to keep up even with major crime. I would have to say that catalogues
that list such material are walking a narrow ethical line, too.

I have wondered whether most of us unwittingly have included stolen material
in our collections. I was recently in a local coin and stamp shop when a
street person came in, wanting to sell an Canadian coin. It was in a grubby
cardboard and plastic "coin pouch" (I don't know the correct name) like
dealers use. The dealer told the street person that it was only worth a
couple of dollars, and he wasn't buying that particular coin anyway. After
the street person left, the dealer told me that he had been offered the same
coin about 10 times over the past few years, all by different street people.

Bob Ingraham

A number of years ago a stamp dealer (as I recall reading) soaked a 24-cent
US stamp of the 1861 Issue off it's cover to reveal a somewhat shabby
printing on the reverse. Evidently, some of the printing waste was reused,
for what reason we don't know.

The point I wish to make is: to be classed an error the stamp must be
released to the public. This is the only way it can/should make it into the
'front' of the catalog.

If a stamp accidentally, or unknowingly, is sold to the public, then it is a
legitimate error. If it is a case where a printer or PO employee is coaxed
into providing waste material to a stamp dealer, then your questions (below)
have some validity. The catalog makers must require a certain amount of
validation, or a signed affidavit, before listing such an item as your Scott
2532. So, either you trust the editors of the catalog, or you don't. Before
raising these questions Victor, more information is needed.

-a



"Victor Manta" wrote in message
...
My regard felt this time on the US 1991, Feb. 22, Switzerland 700th
Anniversary. One of the reasons for my interest is obvious, anther one is
that I have somewhere a joint issue FDC with the both US and CH (Sc. 888)
stamps.

What puzzled me is the following text, cited from my Scott 1999 (where the
stamp has the No. 2532):

"a. Vert. pair, imperf horiz. 1,500 (this is the price, for mint - V.M)¨
Imperfs exist from printers' waste."

Now the questions that bother me are, as related to this stamps, a

- Is the selling or distribution of such "waste" legitimate?
- Is the buying and the ownership of such material legally OK?
- If the answer to the first two question is negative, then is the
"popularization" of such material in catalogues legitimate?

TIA.

Victor Manta

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

dear Victor,

of course it is not legitimate, but the Postal Authorities don't bother
/ can't be bothered since a legal prosecution would cost too much or take
too much time...

The catalogues deal with this material because we - 'the collector' -
want this stuff, because we - ' our honorable exhibition jurors' only want
to hand out 'gold medals' to the VIP collectors that show the most of this
rubbish as they don't want to be discontented since they'd paid for it.
And thus we teach our young, starting collectors - watching these displays at
the exhibitions - that it pays off to have printers waste in your collection
and so on....

gtx, Rein

On 9 Jan 2004 10:39:54 +, "Victor Manta" wrote:
My regard felt this time on the US 1991, Feb. 22, Switzerland 700th
Anniversary. One of the reasons for my interest is obvious, anther one is
that I have somewhere a joint issue FDC with the both US and CH (Sc. 888)
stamps.

What puzzled me is the following text, cited from my Scott 1999 (where the
stamp has the No. 2532):

"a. Vert. pair, imperf horiz. 1,500 (this is the price, for mint - V.M)¨
Imperfs exist from printers' waste."

Now the questions that bother me are, as related to this stamps, a

- Is the selling or distribution of such "waste" legitimate?
- Is the buying and the ownership of such material legally OK?
- If the answer to the first two question is negative, then is the
"popularization" of such material in catalogues legitimate?

TIA.

Victor Manta

dear Victor,

of course it is not legitimate, but the Postal Authorities don't bother
/ can't be bothered since a legal prosecution would cost too much or take
too much time...

The catalogues deal with this material because we - 'the collector' -
want this stuff, because we - ' our honorable exhibition jurors' only want
to hand out 'gold medals' to the VIP collectors that show the most of this
rubbish as they don't want to be discontented since they'd paid for it.
And thus we teach our young, starting collectors - watching these displays at
the exhibitions - that it pays off to have printers waste in your collection
and so on....

gtx, Rein

On 9 Jan 2004 10:39:54 +, "Victor Manta" wrote:
My regard felt this time on the US 1991, Feb. 22, Switzerland 700th
Anniversary. One of the reasons for my interest is obvious, anther one is
that I have somewhere a joint issue FDC with the both US and CH (Sc. 888)
stamps.

What puzzled me is the following text, cited from my Scott 1999 (where the
stamp has the No. 2532):

"a. Vert. pair, imperf horiz. 1,500 (this is the price, for mint - V.M)¨
Imperfs exist from printers' waste."

Now the questions that bother me are, as related to this stamps, a

- Is the selling or distribution of such "waste" legitimate?
- Is the buying and the ownership of such material legally OK?
- If the answer to the first two question is negative, then is the
"popularization" of such material in catalogues legitimate?

TIA.

Victor Manta

"Rein Bakhuizen van den Brink" wrote in message
...

dear Victor,

of course it is not legitimate, but the Postal Authorities don't bother
/ can't be bothered since a legal prosecution would cost too much or take
too much time...

The catalogues deal with this material because we - 'the collector' -
want this stuff, because we - ' our honorable exhibition jurors' only want
to hand out 'gold medals' to the VIP collectors that show the most of this
rubbish as they don't want to be discontented since they'd paid for it.
And thus we teach our young, starting collectors - watching these displays
at
the exhibitions - that it pays off to have printers waste in your
collection
and so on....

gtx, Rein

Bob, Rein

I think that we fully agree on this so-called "waste" and of its destructive
effects on stamp collecting morality. Eventually see also my extended
opinion on:

http://www.values.ch/PASIC/imperf.htm

--
Victor Manta

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dave Joll" wrote in message
...
"Victor Manta" wrote

What puzzled me is the following text, cited from my Scott 1999 (where
the
stamp has the No. 2532):
"a. Vert. pair, imperf horiz. 1,500 (this is the price, for mint -
V.M)¨
Imperfs exist from printers' waste."
Now the questions that bother me are, as related to this stamps, a
- Is the selling or distribution of such "waste" legitimate?
- Is the buying and the ownership of such material legally OK?
- If the answer to the first two question is negative, then is the
"popularization" of such material in catalogues legitimate?

I think the catalogue is talking about two different errors.

"Vert. pair, imperf. horiz." implies that this is a pair of normally
perforated stamps, except with one row of perforations missing.
Until very recently many American stamps were line perforated,
so that if the perforating machine missed a row, the result would
be just one row of perforations missing.

"Imperfs. exist from printers' waste" implies that stamps
completely imperforate on all four sides, were not legitimately
issued. Not the same stamps as the ones priced above.

- Dave

It is possible indeed.

I don't know if "imperf horiz." means only on top or only on bottom, but I
suppose that it's for both horizontal borders. In this case there are two
rows of perforations that should miss, ones that the QC has overseen.

--
Victor Manta

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org
Art on Stamps: http://values.ch
Romania Shown by Its Stamps: http://marci-postale.com
Communism on Stamps: http://www.values.ch/Communism/
Spanish Africa: http://www.values.ch/sna-site/
Remove "um" from the e-mail address to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Albumen" wrote in message
...
A number of years ago a stamp dealer (as I recall reading) soaked a
24-cent
US stamp of the 1861 Issue off it's cover to reveal a somewhat shabby
printing on the reverse. Evidently, some of the printing waste was reused,
for what reason we don't know.

The point I wish to make is: to be classed an error the stamp must be
released to the public. This is the only way it can/should make it into
the
'front' of the catalog.

If a stamp accidentally, or unknowingly, is sold to the public, then it is
a
legitimate error. If it is a case where a printer or PO employee is coaxed
into providing waste material to a stamp dealer, then your questions
(below)
have some validity. The catalog makers must require a certain amount of
validation, or a signed affidavit, before listing such an item as your
Scott
2532. So, either you trust the editors of the catalog, or you don't.
Before
raising these questions Victor, more information is needed.

-a

Agree, but I wonder why would one who knows more provide it?

What about the imperfs that appear many years after the stamps were
released? Nobody can apparently provide information anymore, many collectors
hunt them, and finally the catalogue editors have to adapt to the reality of
the market... It looks like a situation without a solution, as long as, like
Rain wrote it down, "the Postal Authorities don't bother / can't be bothered
since a legal prosecution would cost too much or take too much time".

Often only *one* legal prosecution is sufficient to stop such practices (and
this is valid not only in this case, but also in the case of illegal
stamps).

Victor Manta