Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Belgium's Lion of State issue of 1929-32, Scott #198-211, includes a 40 centime red violet value and a 70 centime orange brown value, both issued in 1930, Scott #206 and 209, respectively. No color variants are listed in Scott.
In 1932 and 1933, these stamps were again issued, this time with pre-cancel surcharges of 10 centimes. Scott retains the original color descriptions for both reissues.
I have a 70 centime red violet with a 10 centime 1932 pre-cancel surcharge that I can't find in Scott. If not for the color, it would be Scott #241.
It has nice, even color, no staining, and has none of the characteristics of a color change or de-sulphurization that I'm familiar with. I don't have access to any specialized catalogues for Belgium, so I'm at something of a loss.
Anybody have any ideas? What am I missing here?
PS. Well, for my first posting of a question, complete with images, this was nice and easy to do. My congratulation on the interface, or more appropriately, to whomever selected this software. This might turn out to be well worth my annual dues (check is in the mail, I promise.)
Login to Like
this post
A slight correction: I should have said "sulphurization". De-sulphurization corrects the problem. Sorry.
Login to Like
this post
It appears to me that what you have is the 40 centime, in its stated shade, overprinted at the later date. If you look carefully at the original value, you will see the bottom horizontal of the 4 showing just below the overprint. It is true that the overprint masks most of the numeral, but there definitely is a cross-hatch that was not part of the printed 7.
Congratulations on your first post. Sorry, assuming my eyes are not fooling me, to burst the bubble of anticipation regarding an unlisted variety.
Login to Like
this post
Cathotel, thanks. I'm reminded on a daily basis that my eyes aren't what they used to be.
I was less of a mind that I'd discovered something new, and more of a mind that I'd just missed something. That was indeed the case, but I thought I'd just missed a footnote or something during my dozen or so passes through that section of the catalogue, or that what I thought I was seeing could be explained by some chemical reaction I didn't know about. Inks with yellow can turn very dark in the wrong circumstances, so that was always a possibility.
I learned long ago that the simplest answer is usually the right one, in philately:
- No, that's not an unknown watermark. Just use the better fluid (back when there was such a thing).
- No, that's not the high-value color variety. You just don't have enough examples of that stamp to see that it's a slightly faded copy of the common variety.
- No, that's not the rare perforation variety. Take a deep breath, calm down, put the gauge on a flat surface, and look again. See?
So, I always assume I'm the one in error, and so far, I've never disappointed myself. Now I can add another caveat:
- Start with the stamp in question itself. Look at it six ways from Sunday under the highest magnification you have. (Sonofagun! Those ARE 4s and not 7s.)
Thanks again for the use of your eyes.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
One of many things that puzzle me (others to follow, I'm sure):
Belgium's Lion of State issue of 1929-32, Scott #198-211, includes a 40 centime red violet value and a 70 centime orange brown value, both issued in 1930, Scott #206 and 209, respectively. No color variants are listed in Scott.
In 1932 and 1933, these stamps were again issued, this time with pre-cancel surcharges of 10 centimes. Scott retains the original color descriptions for both reissues.
I have a 70 centime red violet with a 10 centime 1932 pre-cancel surcharge that I can't find in Scott. If not for the color, it would be Scott #241.
It has nice, even color, no staining, and has none of the characteristics of a color change or de-sulphurization that I'm familiar with. I don't have access to any specialized catalogues for Belgium, so I'm at something of a loss.
Anybody have any ideas? What am I missing here?
PS. Well, for my first posting of a question, complete with images, this was nice and easy to do. My congratulation on the interface, or more appropriately, to whomever selected this software. This might turn out to be well worth my annual dues (check is in the mail, I promise.)
Login to Like
this post
re: Belgium Lion of State/Coat of Arms Surcharges
A slight correction: I should have said "sulphurization". De-sulphurization corrects the problem. Sorry.
Login to Like
this post
04:25:45pm
re: Belgium Lion of State/Coat of Arms Surcharges
It appears to me that what you have is the 40 centime, in its stated shade, overprinted at the later date. If you look carefully at the original value, you will see the bottom horizontal of the 4 showing just below the overprint. It is true that the overprint masks most of the numeral, but there definitely is a cross-hatch that was not part of the printed 7.
Congratulations on your first post. Sorry, assuming my eyes are not fooling me, to burst the bubble of anticipation regarding an unlisted variety.
Login to Like
this post
re: Belgium Lion of State/Coat of Arms Surcharges
Cathotel, thanks. I'm reminded on a daily basis that my eyes aren't what they used to be.
I was less of a mind that I'd discovered something new, and more of a mind that I'd just missed something. That was indeed the case, but I thought I'd just missed a footnote or something during my dozen or so passes through that section of the catalogue, or that what I thought I was seeing could be explained by some chemical reaction I didn't know about. Inks with yellow can turn very dark in the wrong circumstances, so that was always a possibility.
I learned long ago that the simplest answer is usually the right one, in philately:
- No, that's not an unknown watermark. Just use the better fluid (back when there was such a thing).
- No, that's not the high-value color variety. You just don't have enough examples of that stamp to see that it's a slightly faded copy of the common variety.
- No, that's not the rare perforation variety. Take a deep breath, calm down, put the gauge on a flat surface, and look again. See?
So, I always assume I'm the one in error, and so far, I've never disappointed myself. Now I can add another caveat:
- Start with the stamp in question itself. Look at it six ways from Sunday under the highest magnification you have. (Sonofagun! Those ARE 4s and not 7s.)
Thanks again for the use of your eyes.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.