Looks like 3 sides are reperfed. Just saying!
Dan C.
I thought only one sheet existed?
Somehow I must have missed the joke, I think.
Unable to see a pencilled number on the back, is it the first of April again or am I being thick (as usual).
I'm kinda lost on this one, as well....
....explanation, Antonio??
Yes, we had that discussion just few days back about writing on the back of the stamps, plus wasn't there just one sheet with this error?
I assumed that he understood it to be a fake. The 'weathered look' is a nice touch.
Don
It is a lithographed fake. The original is engraved. There is only one pane of 100 in existence. The whereabouts of one inverted Jenny stamp is currently unknown, and another is in a locket.
How can you tell by the scan that isn't engraved?
Yes, I certainly did not think it was legit but it looks like a very good fake. Other than the funky perfs at left, I cannot really see anything wrong with it but only assume it is fake because of the extreme unlikeliness that it could be real. If there is one missing stamp one can always hope to find it, I guess. Did not the missing stamp have a straight edge? I have never seen any convincing Jenny fakes before but one would think they'd be all over the place. I know a dealer in Kansas city that made very convincing inverts. You'd give him a mint original stamp and for $25 he would shave off the center and realign it 180 degrees producing a very convincing fake but this does not appear to be one of those. I don't know how Michael can tell it is lithographed instead of engraved either, perhaps he can tell us how to tell. If there were one lithographed stamp there would probably be thousands of them but I have not seen one.
It seems I remember there was a block of four that did not receive the penciled numbers on the reverse. Of course their was that kid who told me his father had two unknown sheets of them.
Whatever the case I have a good space filler until I get a real one
Lack of depth of color and sharpness of the image. Lack of detail, such as the number on the fuselage. Check it against the image of my C3 below. Sorry about the heavy cancel, but the difference is still apparent. Getting an unused (maybe even mnh) C3 is on my want list. Still the centering on my stamp is wonderful.
The thought of finding a Jenny reminds me of an old story... Mr Hentzel lived next door to my grandparents all the time my father was growing up. At the time my family got back to the US in 1972, he was long gone and his daughter and aging wife still lived in the home.
My father told me that Mr Hentzel was a stamp collector. He was an architect so he had money and my father was sure that his stamp collection was spectacular. He had theories that his collection would have full sheets of Zeppelins, and other great treasures! I was 14 at the time and bought into the dream. I lived to be offered his collection at some future date.
The daughter Helen was cleaning out the downstairs and gave me a couple of boxes of 1950 era Popular Science Magazines which I still have. With this there was a cigar box full of used US stamps off paper. The box was mainly 1930s to 1960s, mainly definitives up to the high values and a lot of precancels, as if these were all soaked off packages. I was happy to get the box at 14 as it added stamps to my little collection.
My father had told me it would be impolite to directly ask about the stamp collection so every time we were with the Hentzels I sat just wishing that Helen would mention them. I'd even weave into the conversation that I was a stamp collector to no reaction.
By the time I was 16 I was a bit bolder and had enough of this excruciating waiting. The mother had died at this point and Helen was talking about selling the house. So I got up all my courage and asked what she was going to do with her father's stamp collection. She replied that she had already given it to me! That's right, the entire fabled collection was that cigar box!
Michael, You could very well be right but comparing the very poor scan of my stamp to what appears to be a 1200dpi scan of your stamp isn't exactly convincing. Even though the scan is bad it certainly appears it is printed on stamp paper. Why would anyone take the time and trouble to make a lithographed stamp and not make lots of them. Also why would a forger perf 3 sides leaving a straight edge to be perfed poorly later. I think their is mystery in this stamp! First thing I'll do is rub my finger across it then take a very good look at it.
Has any one else here ever seen a very good Jenny forgery assuming you have a good eye for such things?
I think this is the item that you have:
http://www.regencystamps.com/USA__C3a__1985_INVERTED_JENNY_ERROR_BLOCK__PETER_W-LOT344465.aspx
Michael, At first I thought that block might be the same as mine but there are two things that reversed that thought. First off those are perf 10 while mine is perf 11. The other is that my plane is faster. I would think that his stamps were printed in one step. If so all of Winters stamps would show the plane in the same position in relation to the frame.
Notice that the lower wing on my stamp touches the frame while his show the plane positioned farther back. No doubt the original sheet showed the plane in slightly different positions
as is to be expected.
Seeing that it sold for $675 makes me feel much less stupid for paying what I did for mine.
then how about this one?
In any event, the bottom line is that there are plenty of fakes out there of this stamp, including the one you have.
That looks pretty nifty, I'd like to see one. The date on that add is 2012 making me wonder if they still have some. In a certain mood I' might be tempted. I thought there were straight edges but that sheet doesn't have any, am I mistaken?
From the picture it looks like they are all perfed. I don't see any of those sheets being offered on the Mystic site. For $100, I'd rather buy real stamps.
I didn't post when this thread first appeared because I didn't expect it to be taken so seriously. Like Don, I assumed everybody would assume it was a fake, so I didn't bother replying. The only question, then, is -- which fake? Now, since there seems to be some interest in the fakes...
It's hard to say with 100% certainty without a much better picture, but your inverted Jenny should be a known forgery of a used inverted Jenny. Someone (maybe more than one person) started putting fake cancels on some of the better fake inverted Jenny's sometime between the 1980's and the 2000's. It wasn't just on Winter's forgeries. The cancel has been washed out, but it is probably one of the "DENVER COLO.//May 29" fake cancels. I think I can see some of the cancel arc and what appears to be washed out lettering ("R COLO.") along the the top left corner and top of your stamp, as well as the "9" from the "MAY 29" fake cancel just beneath the faded "CO". I noticed the faded cancel before I compared to the known fake cancel, and the positioning of the letters/numbers does seem to match one of the 2 variations of the fake Denver cancels that I am aware of. Also, your specific fake cancel is known to exist on the "fast plane" forgery. But again, can't tell for certain with the current picture -- who knows how much incorrect image processing is done by the eye and the imagination?!?
Regarding fakes -- there are PLENTY of them, many of which were produced in full sheets, meaning there are literally tens of thousands of fakes (some of which are good enough to fool even intermediate collectors).
A couple of notes regarding some things posted above:
-- ALL the stamps had the position number penciled on the back before the pane was broken up. Obviously, any stamp that no longer has original gum or was used (one known used), will have the number missing
-- The missing stamp is position 49, so it does not have a straight edge.
-- Several of the genuine inverted Jenny's have been re-perforated or re-gummed. I think most of us would be more than happy to just own a genuine one, and alterations or restorations would be the least of our concerns.
-- Only one pane was found. Postal inspectors did not find any others.
-- Peter Winter forgeries were perf 11. The fast plane forgery that I mentioned is also perf 11.
Don't know if Michael##### remembers, but we actually had a discussion on these used fakes on a board long gone...
"The date on that add is 2012 making me wonder if they still have some."
"I thought there were straight edges but that sheet doesn't have any, am I mistaken?"
KHJ, Thanks for all the great info.
This discussion reminds me of an incident several years ago, which I probably recall because it happened close to home, in Williams Lake, British Columbia, a couple of hours south of Prince George, where I was living at the time. A "gentleman" from Williams Lake posted an Inverted Jenny on eBay and got people all excited, to the extent (as I recall) that a collector was actually planning on flying to Williams Lake to take a look at the stamp. But then it was revealed that the seller had posted nothing more than a scan of a stamp catalogue listing. The RCMP got involved, but I don't know if any charges were ever laid.
It seems to be way too easy to fool collectors. I was fooled by a dealer when he showed me a Canadian Seaway Invert he had obtained. Then he put the stamp into a watermark tray, dropped some watermark fluid drops on it, and it became clearly evident that the "invert" was made simply by carefully cutting the centre out of the stamp, turning it upside down, and "repairing" it.
Bob
"...It seems to be way too easy to fool collectors...."
"Don't know if Michael##### remembers, but we actually had a discussion on these used fakes on a board long gone..."
Not sure why your search didn't turn up the inverted Jenny reproduction page. I used the search at the top right corner of the Mystic home page and put in "C3aRepro".
At any rate, below is the link, which I was originally hesitant to post. Mods can feel free to remove it if it violates any SoR rules.
Mystic 1918 Jenny Invert C3a Reproduction Sheet
If I were including a "disagreeable" relative in my last will, I would be sure to include a 1/4 sheet of the mystic repro Jennys, along with a few "decoy" stamps, just so I could have a little chuckle after my passing.
I wouldn't mind being a victim of such a practical joke and getting a free 1/4 sheet of the reproductions!
The Mystic reproductions, however, can be easily recognized as reproductions because they are on modern paper and have the appearance of a modern printed stamp.
That being said, it is a lot easier to spot reproductions if you have handled the originals before. In the case of the inverted Jenny, comparing it to a genuine upright Jenny as Michael##### did is a basic and trustworthy first step.
I've seen more than a few mint PRC Cultural Revolution stamps being sold on eBay that are nothing more than the reproductions produced in the 1980s for the tourist trade and souvenir/presentation collections. The designs and color are actually quite accurate, but the paper is wrong and the perforations have the wrong "appearance". Again, you're more likely to notice it if you've handled the genuine stamps. Remember all those fake PRC Year of the Monkey stamps? If you've handled a real one, you can easily spot the many fakes that were produced afterwards (some of the fakes were actually pretty good).
I hope no one seriously thinks I thought the stamp to be anything other than a fake. I just thought it would be fun to discuss why it could not be real and perhaps figure out what it might be. Of course figuring exactly what fake it is will not be possible until I have the stamp in my hands and can better examine it.
As far as finding treasures in mixed lots it use to be much easier on Ebay than it is today. I have found quite a few semi treasure stamps in lots of a few hundred mixed stamps slightly hidden and poorly scanned. I cannot remember ever buying anything that I regretted later. I feel I have an advantage in that I collect most everything and have more classic stamps than most anyone so that I know the approximate values of stamps I"m looking at. I not only search for items I need but high value stamps that could be easily overlooked. If I am unfamiliar with an area or the stamps in question have overprints, I do not bid very much if at all. One lot that comes to mind had a few hundred stamps and besides several other stamps valued in the hundreds was an unused (no gum) U.S. #118. I paid around $150 for the lot and later sold the #118 by itself on Ebay for $850. That dealer is still selling on Ebay and still makes many of the same mistakes including poor scans of lots with valuable stamps hidden partially behind cheap stamps. Right now I am waiting to receive a lot from the same guy that I am confident has several stamps that are together valued around $6-7,000 but that I paid only $80 for.
Clearly you know what you're doing.
Respect,
Dan C.
I've re-examined the pic in the original post. Now I'm pretty certain it's a Peter Winter forgery.
for the record, when one knows a significant amount about a stamp, it would be useful if the original poster will include reference to that so that those of us who are trying to be useful, and who don't know as much, don't waste our time trying to discover what the original poster already knows.
these "just kidding" posts from knowledgeable collectors would do better if they were posted, instead, as "bought a fake Jenny; who can tell me the source" or some such thing, so we're all starting with the same information and, as I said, the less well informed among us, like me, aren't searching for that which is already known.
I see others were barking up the wrong tree as well, and neither of them is near as stupid as me.
"neither of them is near as stupid as me"
A Winter forgery was my first assumption as well (see my link above on my first reply).
"that time should not be wasted on chasing wild geese"
"A Winter forgery was my first assumption "
Got me a Jenny too. LOL
Finally found an inverted Jenny for a reasonable price on eBay. My expertizer (my wife Penny), assures me it is inverted.
As am I.
Cheers!
Wine
This one is even rarer. Er, more rare? It's a re-invert:
boB
I think I have the rarest of all
Don
That's funny, Bob!
And, very creative, 51Stude!
Here's my entry of an inverted Jenny:
I picked this one up a couple of years ago, as a poor, neglected street waif of the genre, Scotch Tape stained and all. But look, it's from the very first commercial airmail trip in the United States, May 15, 1918! And, it has the original enclosure, which is a stock tract from the Aerial League, promoting the concept of air mail. I was really, really excited to add this one to my collection!
I'd love to figure out how to remove the Scotch Tape stains, but they're so embedded after 100 years, that I'm not very optimistic.
-Paul
Gotta post this image, too, which I captured.
It's a real Curtiss Jenny, which flies out of a grass strip about 15 miles from where I live. I have never seen it inverted, but it is absolute pleasure to see it droning across the sky, nonetheless...
-Paul
I have this little cover mounted in my collection; it like it because it is only 4". This FAM is notable because it is also the EKU (Earliest Known Use) of a U509. Pretty unique cover.
Don
VERY nice, Don!
Keep 'em coming!
-Paul
Since we are all sharing... here's the page in my album of the first three airmail stamps. Remember, in my collection it doesn't matter if a stamp is mint or used, a single, block or cover. It represents that Scott number just the same!
So Don, the POD printed these smaller envelopes?
Must have been a MUCH smaller production run than the #10s, for example.
The 4-inch width doesn't seem to be a 'standard' size.
Or is this one cut-down? Either way, it's a gem!
Very nice item!
Thanks for sharing,
-Paul
E.C. Titus is a well-known collector/dealer who made many philatelic covers in his time. It is not the PO standard size; I assume he modified this one by unfolding the envelope, cutting it down, and then carefully refolding it back the same way.
Don
What do you think about this one, "GOLD"
There are serious collectors of good fakes. What constitutes a "good" fake is in contention, but there are those who will pay for them.
It's great to dig around in old stamps and think "WHAT IF?". Imagine how the person felt who found the third known copy of Canada # 32!
When I was 9 years old a neighbor kid told me his dad had two inverted Jenny sheets which of course much impressed me. I think he must have buried them and they were dug up lately because today I think got one of them. Looks good to me except for the weathered look and I hope the reperfed left, or is it right, side won't affect the value much.
re: Got me a Jenny
Looks like 3 sides are reperfed. Just saying!
Dan C.
re: Got me a Jenny
I thought only one sheet existed?
Somehow I must have missed the joke, I think.
re: Got me a Jenny
Unable to see a pencilled number on the back, is it the first of April again or am I being thick (as usual).
re: Got me a Jenny
I'm kinda lost on this one, as well....
....explanation, Antonio??
re: Got me a Jenny
Yes, we had that discussion just few days back about writing on the back of the stamps, plus wasn't there just one sheet with this error?
re: Got me a Jenny
I assumed that he understood it to be a fake. The 'weathered look' is a nice touch.
Don
re: Got me a Jenny
It is a lithographed fake. The original is engraved. There is only one pane of 100 in existence. The whereabouts of one inverted Jenny stamp is currently unknown, and another is in a locket.
re: Got me a Jenny
How can you tell by the scan that isn't engraved?
re: Got me a Jenny
Yes, I certainly did not think it was legit but it looks like a very good fake. Other than the funky perfs at left, I cannot really see anything wrong with it but only assume it is fake because of the extreme unlikeliness that it could be real. If there is one missing stamp one can always hope to find it, I guess. Did not the missing stamp have a straight edge? I have never seen any convincing Jenny fakes before but one would think they'd be all over the place. I know a dealer in Kansas city that made very convincing inverts. You'd give him a mint original stamp and for $25 he would shave off the center and realign it 180 degrees producing a very convincing fake but this does not appear to be one of those. I don't know how Michael can tell it is lithographed instead of engraved either, perhaps he can tell us how to tell. If there were one lithographed stamp there would probably be thousands of them but I have not seen one.
It seems I remember there was a block of four that did not receive the penciled numbers on the reverse. Of course their was that kid who told me his father had two unknown sheets of them.
Whatever the case I have a good space filler until I get a real one
re: Got me a Jenny
Lack of depth of color and sharpness of the image. Lack of detail, such as the number on the fuselage. Check it against the image of my C3 below. Sorry about the heavy cancel, but the difference is still apparent. Getting an unused (maybe even mnh) C3 is on my want list. Still the centering on my stamp is wonderful.
re: Got me a Jenny
The thought of finding a Jenny reminds me of an old story... Mr Hentzel lived next door to my grandparents all the time my father was growing up. At the time my family got back to the US in 1972, he was long gone and his daughter and aging wife still lived in the home.
My father told me that Mr Hentzel was a stamp collector. He was an architect so he had money and my father was sure that his stamp collection was spectacular. He had theories that his collection would have full sheets of Zeppelins, and other great treasures! I was 14 at the time and bought into the dream. I lived to be offered his collection at some future date.
The daughter Helen was cleaning out the downstairs and gave me a couple of boxes of 1950 era Popular Science Magazines which I still have. With this there was a cigar box full of used US stamps off paper. The box was mainly 1930s to 1960s, mainly definitives up to the high values and a lot of precancels, as if these were all soaked off packages. I was happy to get the box at 14 as it added stamps to my little collection.
My father had told me it would be impolite to directly ask about the stamp collection so every time we were with the Hentzels I sat just wishing that Helen would mention them. I'd even weave into the conversation that I was a stamp collector to no reaction.
By the time I was 16 I was a bit bolder and had enough of this excruciating waiting. The mother had died at this point and Helen was talking about selling the house. So I got up all my courage and asked what she was going to do with her father's stamp collection. She replied that she had already given it to me! That's right, the entire fabled collection was that cigar box!
re: Got me a Jenny
Michael, You could very well be right but comparing the very poor scan of my stamp to what appears to be a 1200dpi scan of your stamp isn't exactly convincing. Even though the scan is bad it certainly appears it is printed on stamp paper. Why would anyone take the time and trouble to make a lithographed stamp and not make lots of them. Also why would a forger perf 3 sides leaving a straight edge to be perfed poorly later. I think their is mystery in this stamp! First thing I'll do is rub my finger across it then take a very good look at it.
Has any one else here ever seen a very good Jenny forgery assuming you have a good eye for such things?
re: Got me a Jenny
I think this is the item that you have:
http://www.regencystamps.com/USA__C3a__1985_INVERTED_JENNY_ERROR_BLOCK__PETER_W-LOT344465.aspx
re: Got me a Jenny
Michael, At first I thought that block might be the same as mine but there are two things that reversed that thought. First off those are perf 10 while mine is perf 11. The other is that my plane is faster. I would think that his stamps were printed in one step. If so all of Winters stamps would show the plane in the same position in relation to the frame.
Notice that the lower wing on my stamp touches the frame while his show the plane positioned farther back. No doubt the original sheet showed the plane in slightly different positions
as is to be expected.
Seeing that it sold for $675 makes me feel much less stupid for paying what I did for mine.
re: Got me a Jenny
then how about this one?
In any event, the bottom line is that there are plenty of fakes out there of this stamp, including the one you have.
re: Got me a Jenny
That looks pretty nifty, I'd like to see one. The date on that add is 2012 making me wonder if they still have some. In a certain mood I' might be tempted. I thought there were straight edges but that sheet doesn't have any, am I mistaken?
re: Got me a Jenny
From the picture it looks like they are all perfed. I don't see any of those sheets being offered on the Mystic site. For $100, I'd rather buy real stamps.
re: Got me a Jenny
I didn't post when this thread first appeared because I didn't expect it to be taken so seriously. Like Don, I assumed everybody would assume it was a fake, so I didn't bother replying. The only question, then, is -- which fake? Now, since there seems to be some interest in the fakes...
It's hard to say with 100% certainty without a much better picture, but your inverted Jenny should be a known forgery of a used inverted Jenny. Someone (maybe more than one person) started putting fake cancels on some of the better fake inverted Jenny's sometime between the 1980's and the 2000's. It wasn't just on Winter's forgeries. The cancel has been washed out, but it is probably one of the "DENVER COLO.//May 29" fake cancels. I think I can see some of the cancel arc and what appears to be washed out lettering ("R COLO.") along the the top left corner and top of your stamp, as well as the "9" from the "MAY 29" fake cancel just beneath the faded "CO". I noticed the faded cancel before I compared to the known fake cancel, and the positioning of the letters/numbers does seem to match one of the 2 variations of the fake Denver cancels that I am aware of. Also, your specific fake cancel is known to exist on the "fast plane" forgery. But again, can't tell for certain with the current picture -- who knows how much incorrect image processing is done by the eye and the imagination?!?
Regarding fakes -- there are PLENTY of them, many of which were produced in full sheets, meaning there are literally tens of thousands of fakes (some of which are good enough to fool even intermediate collectors).
A couple of notes regarding some things posted above:
-- ALL the stamps had the position number penciled on the back before the pane was broken up. Obviously, any stamp that no longer has original gum or was used (one known used), will have the number missing
-- The missing stamp is position 49, so it does not have a straight edge.
-- Several of the genuine inverted Jenny's have been re-perforated or re-gummed. I think most of us would be more than happy to just own a genuine one, and alterations or restorations would be the least of our concerns.
-- Only one pane was found. Postal inspectors did not find any others.
-- Peter Winter forgeries were perf 11. The fast plane forgery that I mentioned is also perf 11.
re: Got me a Jenny
Don't know if Michael##### remembers, but we actually had a discussion on these used fakes on a board long gone...
re: Got me a Jenny
"The date on that add is 2012 making me wonder if they still have some."
re: Got me a Jenny
"I thought there were straight edges but that sheet doesn't have any, am I mistaken?"
re: Got me a Jenny
KHJ, Thanks for all the great info.
re: Got me a Jenny
This discussion reminds me of an incident several years ago, which I probably recall because it happened close to home, in Williams Lake, British Columbia, a couple of hours south of Prince George, where I was living at the time. A "gentleman" from Williams Lake posted an Inverted Jenny on eBay and got people all excited, to the extent (as I recall) that a collector was actually planning on flying to Williams Lake to take a look at the stamp. But then it was revealed that the seller had posted nothing more than a scan of a stamp catalogue listing. The RCMP got involved, but I don't know if any charges were ever laid.
It seems to be way too easy to fool collectors. I was fooled by a dealer when he showed me a Canadian Seaway Invert he had obtained. Then he put the stamp into a watermark tray, dropped some watermark fluid drops on it, and it became clearly evident that the "invert" was made simply by carefully cutting the centre out of the stamp, turning it upside down, and "repairing" it.
Bob
re: Got me a Jenny
"...It seems to be way too easy to fool collectors...."
re: Got me a Jenny
"Don't know if Michael##### remembers, but we actually had a discussion on these used fakes on a board long gone..."
re: Got me a Jenny
Not sure why your search didn't turn up the inverted Jenny reproduction page. I used the search at the top right corner of the Mystic home page and put in "C3aRepro".
At any rate, below is the link, which I was originally hesitant to post. Mods can feel free to remove it if it violates any SoR rules.
Mystic 1918 Jenny Invert C3a Reproduction Sheet
re: Got me a Jenny
If I were including a "disagreeable" relative in my last will, I would be sure to include a 1/4 sheet of the mystic repro Jennys, along with a few "decoy" stamps, just so I could have a little chuckle after my passing.
re: Got me a Jenny
I wouldn't mind being a victim of such a practical joke and getting a free 1/4 sheet of the reproductions!
The Mystic reproductions, however, can be easily recognized as reproductions because they are on modern paper and have the appearance of a modern printed stamp.
That being said, it is a lot easier to spot reproductions if you have handled the originals before. In the case of the inverted Jenny, comparing it to a genuine upright Jenny as Michael##### did is a basic and trustworthy first step.
I've seen more than a few mint PRC Cultural Revolution stamps being sold on eBay that are nothing more than the reproductions produced in the 1980s for the tourist trade and souvenir/presentation collections. The designs and color are actually quite accurate, but the paper is wrong and the perforations have the wrong "appearance". Again, you're more likely to notice it if you've handled the genuine stamps. Remember all those fake PRC Year of the Monkey stamps? If you've handled a real one, you can easily spot the many fakes that were produced afterwards (some of the fakes were actually pretty good).
re: Got me a Jenny
I hope no one seriously thinks I thought the stamp to be anything other than a fake. I just thought it would be fun to discuss why it could not be real and perhaps figure out what it might be. Of course figuring exactly what fake it is will not be possible until I have the stamp in my hands and can better examine it.
As far as finding treasures in mixed lots it use to be much easier on Ebay than it is today. I have found quite a few semi treasure stamps in lots of a few hundred mixed stamps slightly hidden and poorly scanned. I cannot remember ever buying anything that I regretted later. I feel I have an advantage in that I collect most everything and have more classic stamps than most anyone so that I know the approximate values of stamps I"m looking at. I not only search for items I need but high value stamps that could be easily overlooked. If I am unfamiliar with an area or the stamps in question have overprints, I do not bid very much if at all. One lot that comes to mind had a few hundred stamps and besides several other stamps valued in the hundreds was an unused (no gum) U.S. #118. I paid around $150 for the lot and later sold the #118 by itself on Ebay for $850. That dealer is still selling on Ebay and still makes many of the same mistakes including poor scans of lots with valuable stamps hidden partially behind cheap stamps. Right now I am waiting to receive a lot from the same guy that I am confident has several stamps that are together valued around $6-7,000 but that I paid only $80 for.
re: Got me a Jenny
Clearly you know what you're doing.
Respect,
Dan C.
re: Got me a Jenny
I've re-examined the pic in the original post. Now I'm pretty certain it's a Peter Winter forgery.
re: Got me a Jenny
for the record, when one knows a significant amount about a stamp, it would be useful if the original poster will include reference to that so that those of us who are trying to be useful, and who don't know as much, don't waste our time trying to discover what the original poster already knows.
these "just kidding" posts from knowledgeable collectors would do better if they were posted, instead, as "bought a fake Jenny; who can tell me the source" or some such thing, so we're all starting with the same information and, as I said, the less well informed among us, like me, aren't searching for that which is already known.
I see others were barking up the wrong tree as well, and neither of them is near as stupid as me.
re: Got me a Jenny
"neither of them is near as stupid as me"
re: Got me a Jenny
A Winter forgery was my first assumption as well (see my link above on my first reply).
re: Got me a Jenny
"that time should not be wasted on chasing wild geese"
"A Winter forgery was my first assumption "
re: Got me a Jenny
Got me a Jenny too. LOL
re: Got me a Jenny
Finally found an inverted Jenny for a reasonable price on eBay. My expertizer (my wife Penny), assures me it is inverted.
As am I.
Cheers!
Wine
re: Got me a Jenny
This one is even rarer. Er, more rare? It's a re-invert:
boB
re: Got me a Jenny
I think I have the rarest of all
Don
re: Got me a Jenny
That's funny, Bob!
And, very creative, 51Stude!
Here's my entry of an inverted Jenny:
I picked this one up a couple of years ago, as a poor, neglected street waif of the genre, Scotch Tape stained and all. But look, it's from the very first commercial airmail trip in the United States, May 15, 1918! And, it has the original enclosure, which is a stock tract from the Aerial League, promoting the concept of air mail. I was really, really excited to add this one to my collection!
I'd love to figure out how to remove the Scotch Tape stains, but they're so embedded after 100 years, that I'm not very optimistic.
-Paul
re: Got me a Jenny
Gotta post this image, too, which I captured.
It's a real Curtiss Jenny, which flies out of a grass strip about 15 miles from where I live. I have never seen it inverted, but it is absolute pleasure to see it droning across the sky, nonetheless...
-Paul
re: Got me a Jenny
I have this little cover mounted in my collection; it like it because it is only 4". This FAM is notable because it is also the EKU (Earliest Known Use) of a U509. Pretty unique cover.
Don
re: Got me a Jenny
VERY nice, Don!
Keep 'em coming!
-Paul
re: Got me a Jenny
Since we are all sharing... here's the page in my album of the first three airmail stamps. Remember, in my collection it doesn't matter if a stamp is mint or used, a single, block or cover. It represents that Scott number just the same!
re: Got me a Jenny
So Don, the POD printed these smaller envelopes?
Must have been a MUCH smaller production run than the #10s, for example.
The 4-inch width doesn't seem to be a 'standard' size.
Or is this one cut-down? Either way, it's a gem!
Very nice item!
Thanks for sharing,
-Paul
re: Got me a Jenny
E.C. Titus is a well-known collector/dealer who made many philatelic covers in his time. It is not the PO standard size; I assume he modified this one by unfolding the envelope, cutting it down, and then carefully refolding it back the same way.
Don
re: Got me a Jenny
What do you think about this one, "GOLD"
re: Got me a Jenny
There are serious collectors of good fakes. What constitutes a "good" fake is in contention, but there are those who will pay for them.
re: Got me a Jenny
It's great to dig around in old stamps and think "WHAT IF?". Imagine how the person felt who found the third known copy of Canada # 32!