Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
This stamp is not in the catalog (both Scott and Michel were checked) I think that it should be listed in Scott between # 141 and 142. Does anyone know why it is not? I acquired it years ago and it was supposed to be # 152 and came with others of that set. However, the watermark and perforation is wrong. It is watermarked clearly with crown (113) and the perforation is 13 on all sides. Any information would be appreciated. I would also appreciate any info on the back mark of an S in a post horn that is in the lower right corner. This mark was applied with a rubber stamp and was not on any of the other stamps of this set. Front and back views follow:
Thanks,
Bob
Login to Like
this post
My guess is that the symbol on the back is an expertising mark. They seem to be common on stamps with overprints perhaps because forgeries of overprints are plentiful.
Login to Like
this post
Hi,
Thanks to Philatelia and Guyana1230 for the responses. It appears that SG does not consider the water marks or perfs. in their listings as this would give them a set of 13. I did consider that the mark could be an expert mark but it could also be an owner's mark which used to be put on some stamps especially by dealers.
Regards,
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
You are right. The stamp is not listed as the 38 ore watermark 13, because it was not issued with a surcharge. It is a fraudulent overprint.
And don't let those "expertization" marks on the back of stamps fool you either. They are often fraudulently applied as well.
Login to Like
this post
HI Bob,
I too believe that you have a forged surcharge on a genuine SG N136 / Scott #P6.
SG does distinguish watermark and perforation differences in their main catalogue but not in the simplified Stamps of the World.
Login to Like
this post
Thanks Guys,
That is what I suspected was the case.
Best regards,
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Perhaps I missed something. Can someone explain what part of the surcharge indicates it is forged? Or is it because the surcharged newspaper stamp has a cancel? Or is it because it is not listed in the catalogs? The surcharge itself looks genuine to me.
Remaining stocks of all Danish newspaper stamps were surcharged 27ore in 1918. Whether all the surcharged newspaper stamps were officially resold as postage stamps is a separate matter. To me, the question would be: why does it appear to have cancel?! -- that would be a good reason to seek an expertizer. Bob, could you check with a magnifier -- is the surcharge ink above or below the cancel ink? Above, then forged surcharge; below, still doesn't mean it is genuine.
Thanks in advance for any additional explanations to me.
Login to Like
this post
Hi Kim,
The stamp is not listed in the standard catalogues that I have access to (SG, Facit, Michel, & Scott) so I'm doubtful from the beginning.
Both the unsurcharged and surcharged stamp of this value with the "crosses" watermark have relatively high catalogue values so I'm not surprised to see a forged surcharge using a stamp from the "crown" watermark series.
The relative alignment of the three lines of text on the surcharge doesn't look right to me, i.e. this doesn't match the small number of stamps I've seen from these surcharged sets.
However, I'm very happy to be proved wrong if this is a new discovery.
Login to Like
this post
The font is wrong.
Login to Like
this post
OK, thank you both for your replies.
Login to Like
this post
Hi All,
This stamp is not in the catalog (both Scott and Michel were checked) I think that it should be listed in Scott between # 141 and 142. Does anyone know why it is not? I acquired it years ago and it was supposed to be # 152 and came with others of that set. However, the watermark and perforation is wrong. It is watermarked clearly with crown (113) and the perforation is 13 on all sides. Any information would be appreciated. I would also appreciate any info on the back mark of an S in a post horn that is in the lower right corner. This mark was applied with a rubber stamp and was not on any of the other stamps of this set. Front and back views follow:
Thanks,
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
My guess is that the symbol on the back is an expertising mark. They seem to be common on stamps with overprints perhaps because forgeries of overprints are plentiful.
Login to Like
this post
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
Hi,
Thanks to Philatelia and Guyana1230 for the responses. It appears that SG does not consider the water marks or perfs. in their listings as this would give them a set of 13. I did consider that the mark could be an expert mark but it could also be an owner's mark which used to be put on some stamps especially by dealers.
Regards,
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
03:45:12pm
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
You are right. The stamp is not listed as the 38 ore watermark 13, because it was not issued with a surcharge. It is a fraudulent overprint.
And don't let those "expertization" marks on the back of stamps fool you either. They are often fraudulently applied as well.
Login to Like
this post
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
HI Bob,
I too believe that you have a forged surcharge on a genuine SG N136 / Scott #P6.
SG does distinguish watermark and perforation differences in their main catalogue but not in the simplified Stamps of the World.
Login to Like
this post
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
Thanks Guys,
That is what I suspected was the case.
Best regards,
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
Perhaps I missed something. Can someone explain what part of the surcharge indicates it is forged? Or is it because the surcharged newspaper stamp has a cancel? Or is it because it is not listed in the catalogs? The surcharge itself looks genuine to me.
Remaining stocks of all Danish newspaper stamps were surcharged 27ore in 1918. Whether all the surcharged newspaper stamps were officially resold as postage stamps is a separate matter. To me, the question would be: why does it appear to have cancel?! -- that would be a good reason to seek an expertizer. Bob, could you check with a magnifier -- is the surcharge ink above or below the cancel ink? Above, then forged surcharge; below, still doesn't mean it is genuine.
Thanks in advance for any additional explanations to me.
Login to Like
this post
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
Hi Kim,
The stamp is not listed in the standard catalogues that I have access to (SG, Facit, Michel, & Scott) so I'm doubtful from the beginning.
Both the unsurcharged and surcharged stamp of this value with the "crosses" watermark have relatively high catalogue values so I'm not surprised to see a forged surcharge using a stamp from the "crown" watermark series.
The relative alignment of the three lines of text on the surcharge doesn't look right to me, i.e. this doesn't match the small number of stamps I've seen from these surcharged sets.
However, I'm very happy to be proved wrong if this is a new discovery.
Login to Like
this post
03:29:22am
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
The font is wrong.
Login to Like
this post
re: Does anyone have any information on this Danish stamp?
OK, thank you both for your replies.
Login to Like
this post