Why I took down the Scott #277 auction of May 11, 2008.
I immediately put the #277 back up for sale on eBay on July 27 and sold it on Aug 3rd for $167.50
I took down the auction because a bidder had raised the question as to whether or not the stamp was truly unused or not. What follows is the email conversation along with notes on my thoughts between email messages.
On May 11, 08 I put up for auction on eBay a Scott #277, see image above, described as Unused, Regummed and no faults. On may 16 I received a question through eBay from the then high bidder.
My response was:
Shortly after I had sent the response I got to thinking that maybe he was trying to tell me something, maybe this stamp isn't all that it's cracked up to be. So I emailed a message to myself from work:
When I got home
from work that night I sat down and re-examined the stamp very closely and found
that what I thought was a repaired tear was a small smudge of red. Using a 30X
microscope I found that the entire front of the stamp was covered in tiny specks
of red. That along with the red stain on the back convinced me that possibly
something was up with this stamp. I immediately took down the listing and
prepared the stamp to be sent to the A.P.S. for expertizing.
Doug's replay to my last email was:
To which I replied:
Doug's reply was:
I probably won't hear back from the A.P.S. for another three months. In the mean time I learned a valuable lesson and that is I should be very careful when examining stamps, especially the older ones that appear to be unused, take nothing for granted and be mindful that there are a lot of stamps out there that are not what they seem to be. This was a case where the catalog price far exceeded the cost of expertizing and by rights should have sent the stamp out to be checked before putting it up for auction.
I want to thank Doug Hall for teaching me this valuable lesson and for letting me share our email conversation with the rest of the world. Comments are always welcomed.
To Contact Riverside Stamps: