1c Blue, Ty. IIIa, Imperforate Between (formerly 22b). Positions 27-28L4, horizontal pair, the 1958 P.F. certificate states "imperforate between pair", but the 2015 P.F. certificate states "Scott 22 with blind perforations slightly into the most upper right ornament of the left stamp and a tiny pinhole at lower left" -- we will have something to say about this shortly -- deep Plate 4 shade, neat strikes of circular datestamp, Fine and extremely rare

Now for our commentary: This pair was the basis of the Scott Catalogue listing for Scott 22b, which has now been de-listed because of the P.F. certificate. It was owned by two outstanding 1c 1851-57 authorities, Mortimer L. Neinken and Jerome S. Wagshal. Frankly, we consider the 2015 P.F. opinion to be an appalling act of expertizing revisionism, and entirely unjustified, not because the physical evidence isn't there, but because they have totally misunderstood the nature of the variety and misinterpreted the significance of the physical characteristics.

The imperforate-between varieties were obviously created when the perforating pins on a wheel suffered a mechanical deficit, and not because the pins "vanished" or the operator failed to apply a single row of perforations. The entire concept of "missing perforations" on 1857 stamps means they failed to punch the paper and the holes cannot be seen. In this example, not one complete perforation hole can be seen. There are three, possibly four, faint half-circle shallow indentations in the surface of the paper at the top and nothing else. For the P.F. or any expert to say this pair has "blind" perforations and is not imperforate-between, because of these barely impressed half-circles, is a misguided attempt to suggest that the row of perforating pins had to be "missing" when the sheet was perforated, or that the operator somehow "skipped" the "true" imperforate-between pair. Neither of those concepts is correct.

Expertizing decisions such as this cause us great frustration. We have faith that it will not stop intelligent philatelists from recognizing the rarity and significance of this 1857 perforating variety/error. Perhaps the P.F. can be persuaded to correct this wrong on a reconsideration, and the Scott Catalogue listing will be restored. Should that occur, whoever buys this pair will be financially rewarded for following his convictions and ignoring a paper certificate.

Image Magnifier / Download

Power Search for Comparables