rod222
Member 
Posts: 9,855 
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps, Ephemera and Catalogues
Member is Online
|
Post by rod222 on Mar 28, 2014 23:19:09 GMT
wiki  This popped up in a penny auction lot. I am not very confident of Identification, advice welcomed. I have it as Scott #60, 1878 COGH Type 2, "G" overprint Type "K" CV $55 (for a nice example)  |
|
Ryan
Member
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,720
What I collect: If I have a catalogue for it, I collect it. And I have many catalogues ....
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 12, 2014 2:43:37 GMT
I am not very confident of Identification, advice welcomed. I have it as Scott #60, 1878 COGH Type 2, "G" overprint Type "K" The various catalogues I have (Scott, SG, Michel, SASC) don't give much info at all regarding the overprints, just the often barely distinguishable illustrations. The Michel catalogue, however, does specify the groupings of overprints as being large, medium and small in typeface size. If I zoom in on the illustration shown in Scott, #60 has an overprint roughly three perf teeth high (Michel's "medium" size) but your overprint is only about two teeth high, so I think it must be from the Scott #83-102 group of listings. The choices, then, are either Scott overprint type "S" or the unlabelled type "U" (last listings - corresponds to SG & SASC types 15 & 17). Type "S" is a bit pudgier and less narrow than Type "U" and to my eye comes closer to matching your stamp so I'd go with Scott #95, but I certainly can't claim to be an expert. Ryan |
|
rod222
Member
Posts: 9,855
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps, Ephemera and Catalogues
Member is Online
|
Post by rod222 on Apr 12, 2014 4:34:54 GMT
Ryan suggested "so I'd go with Scott #95, but I certainly can't claim to be an expert." Cheers Ryan  thanks for the revisit, cannot go with your pick, that suggests to me the typesetting is Italic. I have now decided it may be 1. a $32.50 stamp, or 2. a forgery Note the size of the mouth of the "G" that suggests to me the best bet is Scott type "S" Type 11 (no outer frame line) that would ascribe Scott #90 CV 32.50 used. (less for damage) Please pick holes in my argument For the record....Stanley Gibbons Catalogue 1956  |
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Apr 12, 2014 4:38:20 GMT
It is tough to be sure with any of the GW postal issues, since they rely on a minimalist overprint...at least with the revenues, you can know what you're dealing with:  [click to enlarge] |
|
rod222
Member
Posts: 9,855
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps, Ephemera and Catalogues
Member is Online
|
Post by rod222 on Apr 12, 2014 4:49:01 GMT
It is tough to be sure with any of the GW postal issues, since they rely on a minimalist overprint...at least with the revenues, you can know what you're dealing with: [click to enlarge] Sorry to be a pain in the butt Collin, but I have to call you on that statement  The Revenues have the same minimalist overprints (really!) Your example escapes of course, Barefoot # #50 1879 Perf 14 no wmk CV $1.50 (2000) BTW. Nice stamp! |
|
Ryan
Member
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,720
What I collect: If I have a catalogue for it, I collect it. And I have many catalogues ....
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 12, 2014 19:20:16 GMT
Ryan suggested "so I'd go with Scott #95, but I certainly can't claim to be an expert." Cheers Ryan thanks for the revisit, cannot go with your pick, that suggests to me the typesetting is Italic. I have now decided it may be 1. a $32.50 stamp, or 2. a forgery Note the size of the mouth of the "G" that suggests to me the best bet is Scott type "S" Type 11 (no outer frame line) that would ascribe Scott #90 CV 32.50 used. (less for damage) Oops, my mistake, I was trying to give the listing for the type "S" overprint (not the italic type "T"), which would be Scott #90, as you say. I was looking mostly at the height / width ratio of the two overprint types "S" & "U" and I lean towards type "S" as being the one shown on your copy. The serif heights & lengths aren't correct for the illustration but that could be just a matter of variances in the overprint. Or, it might actually be a type "U" that looks "very like the upright 'antique' of the first printing in small capitals," because who knows what the heck they're talking about there in that SG footnote. The big problem I have always had with old stamps and forgeries is that you need a good reference copy (or text) to determine whether or not the one you have is the real thing or a phony one. But even if you had a 1200 dpi scan of a stamp with a real overprint, how would you know that your stamp isn't just a poor application of a genuine overprint? Too confusing for my poor brain! Ryan |
|
hdm1950
Member
Posts: 1,595
What I collect: I collect world wide up to 1965 with several specialty albums added due to volume of material I have acquired. At this point I am focused on Canada and British America. I am always on the lookout for stamps and covers with postmarks from communities in Queens County, Nova Scotia. I do list various goods including stamps occasionally on eBay as hdm50
Member is Online
|
Post by hdm1950 on Nov 19, 2022 15:01:29 GMT
This morning I finished reading Lawrence Block’s novel Hit and Run. As I have said in a few previous posts the hit man Keller is a stamp collector. The collectors of Griqualand West and Cape of Good Hope will be happy to know that they got top billing in the last chapter .  |
|
sudbury12000
Member
Posts: 313
What I collect: Canada, Great Britain, Germany, World Pre 1925
|
Post by sudbury12000 on Jan 24, 2023 15:58:42 GMT
Interesting era of overprints. I started to try and catalogue, but got a little more that frustrated. Seems there are some forgeries in my collection, I did expect that, but even the authentic ones are very are to spec. And I have more that are unmounted. Maybe one weekend this winter....  |
|
