cjd
Member 
Posts: 1,107 
|
Post by cjd on Mar 12, 2015 3:58:13 GMT
 The 5 Silbergroschen, paying the letter rate to England. This one looked okay at the dealer (the small tear excepted), but upon getting it scanned, I believe it may be forgery 1 in Earée's Album Weeds. It was only a spacefiller anyway, so I'm not out anything, but I was hoping to have a reliable reference copy, and I don't think I do. Thoughts? |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,458
|
Post by khj on Mar 12, 2015 5:31:21 GMT
Would you consider the possibility of forgery 3? Ignoring measurements that I can't make from the picture, it seems to meet most of the criteria for forgery 3, of which the most noticeable distinguishing feature is that the "g" in "Sgr" extends below the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by classicalstamps on Mar 12, 2015 6:34:28 GMT
Please post a higher resolution image. Here is a genuine Michel 4a for comparison:  |
|
rod222
Member
Posts: 9,886
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps, Ephemera and Catalogues
|
Post by rod222 on Mar 12, 2015 7:49:41 GMT
Not of my collection. Forbin #3 1866  |
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Mar 12, 2015 13:54:54 GMT
Love the revenue, rod. Great scan, classical. One feature that is commonly mentioned in the written descriptions is a center shading line in the right line of the V. Is that something that is visible on the large image of the genuine stamp, above, and I'm just missing what they are meaning?
k, I reread the Type 3 forgery and I see a number of matches. I had ruled it out the first time through based on the bottom tail of the 5, the shape of the stop, the shading lines in the frame...there is probably more that matches than doesn't. Spending more time looking at it, mine is probably not good enough to be a Type 1.
(I can put up a larger scan tonight.)
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,458
|
Post by khj on Mar 12, 2015 15:49:21 GMT
In case some might be confused, the forgery numbers we are referring to are not the ones mentioned in the original "Album Weeds" by Earée, but the album weeds described at the Stampforgeries website.
You have the stamp in hand, so your view will be much better than mine. But yes, if you can upload a better resolution scan. But if that "g" goes below the line, my understanding is that is a sufficient distinguishing feature of forgery 3.
Regarding the line in the right arm of the "V", if I am not mistaken it runs parallel within the arm, but is very very light. On the genuine it runs centered, while on forgery 3 it runs very close to the left side of the right arm. It looked like there was something there on your scan, but I had it blown up pretty big and the resolution was not that sharp.
|
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Mar 12, 2015 16:37:07 GMT
Yes, that would be a headscratcher for someone who is trying to follow along in the text, as the original Album Weeds only has two forgery descriptions, neither of which exactly matches my stamp. I'm referring to the wonderful updating done by our friend classicalstamps.
|
|
|
|
Post by classicalstamps on Mar 12, 2015 19:57:48 GMT
I just looked in the GPS Forgery Manual. Your copy does not look like any of the 9 different forgeries shown.
Your stamp differ a lot from the image I posted though - a bit to much.
For example, the '5' is totally different.
|
|
|
|
Post by classicalstamps on Mar 12, 2015 20:00:33 GMT
Yes, that would be a headscratcher for someone who is trying to follow along in the text, as the original Album Weeds only has two forgery descriptions, neither of which exactly matches my stamp. I'm referring to the wonderful updating done by our friend classicalstamps. Thanks for the compliment, but I can not take any credit for this. The one on my website is the 3rd edition by the original authors. I wanted to write an 'updated' book on worldwide forgeries, but somehow the project turned into stampforgeries.com instead  |
|
|
|
Post by PostmasterGS on Mar 12, 2015 20:09:03 GMT
I don't know, classicalstamps, looks like it could be a Type IV in the GPS manual.   |
|
|
|
Post by classicalstamps on Mar 12, 2015 20:26:43 GMT
I agree, it is the most likely candidate. But the bottom of the 'S' points out to left in GPS type IV. Seems different.
|
|
|
|
Post by PostmasterGS on Mar 12, 2015 20:31:46 GMT
Looks like that could be residue of the cancel in the low-quality GPS shot, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by classicalstamps on Mar 12, 2015 20:48:11 GMT
It would be easy if cjd posted a large image. The 'R E E' of Bremen in GPS Forgery IV is very different than the original.
|
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Mar 12, 2015 21:02:47 GMT
Coming soon to a screen near you.  Spring is trying to spring early here, so it is tempting to leave the office a little early...maybe I can post a new scan sooner than I thought... |
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Mar 12, 2015 23:54:11 GMT
We can try this first. I cut the height in half to get back to something reasonable, and then put the quality at 80%. If we need to go back to 100%, I have that, too.  At this resolution, the condition really stands out. And not in a good way. Yikes. |
|
rod222
Member
Posts: 9,886
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps, Ephemera and Catalogues
|
Post by rod222 on Mar 13, 2015 3:43:55 GMT
My Forgery is worse than yours, (and possibly illustrates the low levels I'll stoop to, in my collecting habit) Note lower left corner signs of colour changeling green to blue.  |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,458
|
Post by khj on Mar 13, 2015 4:17:44 GMT
Well, Rod, at least your copy kept the silverfish happy.
|
|
rod222
Member
Posts: 9,886
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps, Ephemera and Catalogues
|
Post by rod222 on Mar 13, 2015 6:44:53 GMT
Well, Rod, at least your copy kept the silverfish happy. (Imagining) Derek the Silverfish, to his girlfriend Morwena. "Pshew! that's disgusting, I think that's a forgery.... Let's try British Guiana" |
|
