Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Any help to satisfy my curiosity is appreciated.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
04:39:41pm
This might not help. I have a very similar Philippines stamp, it's on a Telegraph stamp with the same overprinted denomination in a slightly different format and overprinted on a different denomination. Check out Scott #136 in the Philippines and maybe someone who is more of an expert in this area can take it from there. My gut tells me it connected to this Philippines stamp. Good luck!
Addition: I kept looking and think it is Philippines #108 - except that is not on a telegraph stamp. Sorry, I thought I had it! I think it's a non-Scott revenue stamp from The Philippines. As you probably already know stamps with that particular group of royals was used in Spain, Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines and possibly other Spanish colonies I don't collect.
Login to Like
this post
Joe,
I think you hit the nail on the head. The over print is slightly different than that shown for Philippines #108, but as you said it is probably a Non-Scott revenue. I would never have suspected the stamp from some other Spanish colony, but you can bet if I ever run across another one with Spanish writing, I will be looking.
Another reason I do not collect WW. I will stick with my Washington/Franklins, they are much easier.
Appreciate your help.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
06:39:49pm
Hi Mel. The only reason I collect Cuba, Puerto Rico and The Philippines Is that they fit with my US collection. I decided to add in the ex-protectorates so that includes those three countries plus Hawaii, Danish West Indies, Canal Zone and Guam. The early Spanish type stuff is a real pain because of the Isabella and Alfonso stamps - mostly the colour variations and water marks ( mostly Philippines ). I think I'm right about your stamp, but I'm not positive. I should probably just stuck to stamps from these areas directly connected to the US, but a challenge is good sometimes. Stay safe everyone and as the premier of Nova Scotia said "Stay the blazes home"!!
Login to Like
this post
I believe this is a Philippines revenue reconverted to a telegraph. Hiscocks #30
from Hiscocks -
A shortage of telegraph stamps in 1889 led to a decree of
30 March 1889 authorizing the use of telegraph stamps overprinted
"Recargo de Consumes. Habilitado" in an oval containing the value in
black — i.e. returning telegraph stamps which had been converted
to fiscals to their original use.
The values authorized were 5, 7½, and 10 cents on No. 34 (20c lilac)
(Forbin 30-32) which are known, together with 11¼c (Forbin 33) on
No. 34 and 17½, 25, 40 and 75c and 1 and 1.25 pesos, unlisted by
Forbin, not seen, but possibly also on No. 34. It seems unlikely that
those above 10c were used.
They were withdrawn from telegraph use on 10 August 1889.
the list of Fiscal stamps authorized for use as Telegraph stamps (Hiscocks # in () )
2½c on 1c olive-sepia (H27)
24 2½c on 2c carmine (H28)
25 2½c on 2½c brown (H29)
26 2½c on 5c blue (H30)
27 2½c on 10c yellow-green (H31)
28 2½c on 10c lilac (H32)
29 2½c on 20c lilac (H34)
30 5c on 20c lilac (H34)
31 7½c on 20c lilac (H34)
32 10c on 20c lilac (H34)
33 11¼c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 17½c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 25c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 40c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 75c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 1p on 20c lilac (H34)
- 1.25p on 20c lilac (H34)
This imples that other values, or on postage stamps, such as these 2½c on various values (F19, F21, F29, F17): Were NOT authorized for Telegraphic use, and remained Fiscal stamps. Forbin 16-22 was this overprint on similar postage stamps.
ie these stamps
Login to Like
this post
Robert,
Thanks for the additional information. The stamp I have is exactly like the second stamp in your image. I find it strange that they use 4/8 to mean 1/2 which is exactly what it is.
Again thanks to you and Joe. Your responses are what make SOR a great place to hang out.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
Hi Robert,
This stamp appears to be Forbin's Philippines "Recargo de Consumos" #26.
I see the note in my 1982 Hiscocks catalogue that some of these revenues were made valid temporarily for telegraphic use from March to August 1889.
However, I don't see this value as being one of them.
Has this changed in the newer edition?
Either way, I would follow Hiscocks' advice and classify it as a revenue.
Login to Like
this post
The ones listed
2½c on 1c olive-sepia (H27)
24 2½c on 2c carmine (H28)
25 2½c on 2½c brown (H29)
26 2½c on 5c blue (H30)
27 2½c on 10c yellow-green (H31)
28 2½c on 10c lilac (H32)
29 2½c on 20c lilac (H34)
were not known as being authorized
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks for the clarification Ron.
Login to Like
this post
I do not know why I torture myself with this. I don't even collect Cuba or even South America. But finding something to do while hiding from the bug. Sorting a pile to keep busy. I believe this stamp is Cuban and because it says Telegrafos across the top, it is probably not in Scott. Also the postmark or overprint? indicates $002 4/8, which is strange. But has a great socked on the nose postmark or overprint what ever it is.
Any help to satisfy my curiosity is appreciated.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
10 Apr 2020
04:39:41pm
re: Cuba Help
This might not help. I have a very similar Philippines stamp, it's on a Telegraph stamp with the same overprinted denomination in a slightly different format and overprinted on a different denomination. Check out Scott #136 in the Philippines and maybe someone who is more of an expert in this area can take it from there. My gut tells me it connected to this Philippines stamp. Good luck!
Addition: I kept looking and think it is Philippines #108 - except that is not on a telegraph stamp. Sorry, I thought I had it! I think it's a non-Scott revenue stamp from The Philippines. As you probably already know stamps with that particular group of royals was used in Spain, Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines and possibly other Spanish colonies I don't collect.
Login to Like
this post
re: Cuba Help
Joe,
I think you hit the nail on the head. The over print is slightly different than that shown for Philippines #108, but as you said it is probably a Non-Scott revenue. I would never have suspected the stamp from some other Spanish colony, but you can bet if I ever run across another one with Spanish writing, I will be looking.
Another reason I do not collect WW. I will stick with my Washington/Franklins, they are much easier.
Appreciate your help.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
This is my diabetic cat OBI! I think, therefore I am - I think! Descartes, sort of!
10 Apr 2020
06:39:49pm
re: Cuba Help
Hi Mel. The only reason I collect Cuba, Puerto Rico and The Philippines Is that they fit with my US collection. I decided to add in the ex-protectorates so that includes those three countries plus Hawaii, Danish West Indies, Canal Zone and Guam. The early Spanish type stuff is a real pain because of the Isabella and Alfonso stamps - mostly the colour variations and water marks ( mostly Philippines ). I think I'm right about your stamp, but I'm not positive. I should probably just stuck to stamps from these areas directly connected to the US, but a challenge is good sometimes. Stay safe everyone and as the premier of Nova Scotia said "Stay the blazes home"!!
Login to Like
this post
06:52:50pm
Auctions - Approvals
re: Cuba Help
I believe this is a Philippines revenue reconverted to a telegraph. Hiscocks #30
from Hiscocks -
A shortage of telegraph stamps in 1889 led to a decree of
30 March 1889 authorizing the use of telegraph stamps overprinted
"Recargo de Consumes. Habilitado" in an oval containing the value in
black — i.e. returning telegraph stamps which had been converted
to fiscals to their original use.
The values authorized were 5, 7½, and 10 cents on No. 34 (20c lilac)
(Forbin 30-32) which are known, together with 11¼c (Forbin 33) on
No. 34 and 17½, 25, 40 and 75c and 1 and 1.25 pesos, unlisted by
Forbin, not seen, but possibly also on No. 34. It seems unlikely that
those above 10c were used.
They were withdrawn from telegraph use on 10 August 1889.
the list of Fiscal stamps authorized for use as Telegraph stamps (Hiscocks # in () )
2½c on 1c olive-sepia (H27)
24 2½c on 2c carmine (H28)
25 2½c on 2½c brown (H29)
26 2½c on 5c blue (H30)
27 2½c on 10c yellow-green (H31)
28 2½c on 10c lilac (H32)
29 2½c on 20c lilac (H34)
30 5c on 20c lilac (H34)
31 7½c on 20c lilac (H34)
32 10c on 20c lilac (H34)
33 11¼c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 17½c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 25c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 40c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 75c on 20c lilac (H34)
- 1p on 20c lilac (H34)
- 1.25p on 20c lilac (H34)
This imples that other values, or on postage stamps, such as these 2½c on various values (F19, F21, F29, F17): Were NOT authorized for Telegraphic use, and remained Fiscal stamps. Forbin 16-22 was this overprint on similar postage stamps.
ie these stamps
Login to Like
this post
re: Cuba Help
Robert,
Thanks for the additional information. The stamp I have is exactly like the second stamp in your image. I find it strange that they use 4/8 to mean 1/2 which is exactly what it is.
Again thanks to you and Joe. Your responses are what make SOR a great place to hang out.
Mel
Login to Like
this post
re: Cuba Help
Hi Robert,
This stamp appears to be Forbin's Philippines "Recargo de Consumos" #26.
I see the note in my 1982 Hiscocks catalogue that some of these revenues were made valid temporarily for telegraphic use from March to August 1889.
However, I don't see this value as being one of them.
Has this changed in the newer edition?
Either way, I would follow Hiscocks' advice and classify it as a revenue.
Login to Like
this post
re: Cuba Help
The ones listed
2½c on 1c olive-sepia (H27)
24 2½c on 2c carmine (H28)
25 2½c on 2½c brown (H29)
26 2½c on 5c blue (H30)
27 2½c on 10c yellow-green (H31)
28 2½c on 10c lilac (H32)
29 2½c on 20c lilac (H34)
were not known as being authorized
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.