Show Your US 1847 Issue Stamps & Covers

Hey all,

This beauty has what appears to be a plate scratch in the upper left selvedge.

I thought that someone might be familiar with the position.

Thanks in Advance,

Stan Shepp

Hello everyone!
Here's mine. Unfortunately, it's missing the entire bottom margin and it's a little damaged. I'm still beginning in the learning of varieties and color shades from this issue so, I wonder if someone could tell me if my stamp has a characteristic of a plate position or a certain variety.

I also wonder if we can consider that this stamp has never been hinged. I can't see any hinge mark, but i'm still beginning with the different conditions of the back. So, is that stamp never hinged? Thanks for telling me anything about this stamp I didn't know.

The philatelic term "never hinged" refers to an UNUSED stamp that still retains all of its original gum and has never been hinged. So your USED stamp cannot be "never hinged" by definition. Now this used stamp may or may not have ever had a hinge applied to its backside but that is a moot point if you were asking whether this stamp was "never hinged". I am no expert on the varieties, etc. of the first U.S. issue but am suspicious that the top margin shows evidence of what may be rebacking?

Thanks! But I have a question: what, exactly, is rebacking? How to spot rebacked stamps and why would people reback some stamps?

Rebacking is applying paper over the back of a stamp in order to hide damage and faults such as thins. Think of it as stabilizing a stamp. Usually the motive is to peddle a damaged stamp to a novice for more money than it is worth. Your stamp has heavy damage at the top with chunks missing and without rebacking it has very little value to a collector.

You should dip the stamp for sure and see what is hiding.

Thank you really much for the information, rogdcam! How can you remark if a stamp has been rebacked?

Here is a thread discussing a rebacked (Canadian) stamp, with pictures. The #1 pictured above I think may be repaired, but not rebacked. If fully rebacked, it would look a lot better, and they would have fixed the bottom margin as well. The nick at the top looks like a tear that has been folded back into place. When rebacked, the back of the stamp should look completely smooth.

Dip it and we shall see.

When you dip a rebacked stamp, it will not absorb the fluid as quickly or as easily as a normal stamp. Because it must go through both layers AND whatever is holding them together. A rebacked stamp will usually get wet from the edges in, with the center being the last part to get soaked.

Thanks everyone for teaching me! But in what kind of liquid do you dip these stamps? In a watermark liquid?

You can use lighter fluid if you don't have watermark fluid.

I don't have watermark fluid, but I know someone that has some. I'm going to bring the stamp at his store.

Good news: my stamp hasn't been rebacked.

I put it in the watermark fluid and the stamp absorbed all the liquid quickly. So, the back is just in a good condition.

Something is obviously not right with the stamp. Where the pieces are missing in the middle and right top there is paper where there should be air. That should not be. Yet, from the back it appears to be homogeneous paper. That is reality.

So, you think that it has been rebacked? Or maybe something else happened?