Acquired in the Robert Siegel 2007 Henry Tolman auction, the RB25 horizontal pair below was not singled out for individual sale; it was part of a larger lot, hinged to a page in a lot of several other proprietary imperforate pairs and blocks. The pair is homely, with a crease, a pinhole, and a major centering problem. But it might be unique. Tolman included it in his collection because there is no rouletting between the stamps. There is rouletting all around, creating an imperforate, or "imroulette"-between condition that is somewhat rare among the battlship imperf examples.
The two document fragments below with R154 bisects were included in the recent American Revenuer article arguing for the inclusion of an R163 bisect in the Scott Catalog. As with the R163 bisect document fragments, the examples below demonstrate a legitimate and timely use for bisects when insurance companies, requiring half cent stamps to comply with the 1898 tax law, did not all have access to the half cent battleship stamps.
The Travelers Insurance Company agents H. D. Eichelberger & Company applied the R154 bisects to a Travelers accident policy, and then canceled the stamps in manuscript with "HDE&Co", plus a date. Note that the first fragment is tied by the manuscript cancel, the second fragment's pen cancel does not show up on the background paper, though it is consistent across the stamps.
The experts at the PF seem to have used a single criterion to judge the first bisect as genuine: the presence of the cancel tying the stamp to the document; while using the absence of a tying cancel on the second fragment to justify thet lack of an opinion. I guess I need to respect the decision, but the PF ignores multiple layers of evidence The arguments that the second fragment is legitimate are multiple:
Experienced collectors know better. For posterity, the R154 bisect above canceled with the R155 is a genuine bisect and is a scarce collectible.
%20bisect.jpg)
%20bisect.jpg)
%20bisect.jpg)
%20bisect.jpg)
