stainlessb
Member 
qaStaHvIS yIn 'ej chep
Posts: 4,903
What I collect: currently focused on most of western Europe, much of which is spent on France, Belgium, Germany and Great Britain Queen Victoria
|
Post by stainlessb on Apr 2, 2019 0:39:57 GMT
Sc# 37a 1907-1910 The overprint almost looks like it is atop the cancellation (??)  |
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator 
Posts: 5,908 
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Apr 3, 2019 10:46:28 GMT
Thanks, Stan ( stainlessb), for yet another interesting image and intriguing question. I am absolutely no authority on any of this, but here are my observations: - I agree with you that in some places, it does appear that the overprint is on top of the cancellation, but perhaps the appearance is deceiving
- Your catalogue ID looks right to me, although my 2013 edition does not show the "a" variant on Sc 37. So, low CV does not suggest that it is likely a forged overprint/surcharge
- As for the postmark, it does appear that the year is inverted relative to the other elements, as it is clearly "08" and not "80" considering when the stamp was issued
Well, that's what I could see. Perhaps Nelson (@falshung) or Gavin ( feebletodix) or Allan ( tallanent) or someone else may be in a better position to comment about the appearance of the overprint and postmark. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 13:47:09 GMT
Sc# 37a 1907-1910 The overprint almost looks like it is atop the cancellation (??) The Ovpt is genuine, at least a dozen traits match There is an "a" variant but that is the 2 frame being scarlet instead of carmine
As for the postmark the 80 is certainly unusual as the issue date is 1907 but the shape of the visible letters match an original and a used copy has no value advantage
Look at the shape, height, relative position of the letters, all match
|
|
stainlessb
Member
qaStaHvIS yIn 'ej chep
Posts: 4,903
What I collect: currently focused on most of western Europe, much of which is spent on France, Belgium, Germany and Great Britain Queen Victoria
|
Post by stainlessb on Apr 3, 2019 16:59:08 GMT
Thanks Nelson (@nl1947)
so this is #37 and not 37a?
could this stamp have been used as valid postage in 1980? or did the clerk somewhat dyslexic?  |
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,908
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Apr 5, 2019 8:43:38 GMT
Well, I suppose you can all choose to ignore me, as many do, but I am telling you that the year is "08" and it is inverted relative to the rest of the CDS. If you look closely, and you read the number as "80", you will notice that the slightly smaller loop of the eight is on the bottom, when it should be on the top. I think that this clearly points to the fact that the year has been inverted. It is not 1880 or 1980, it is 1908. In addition, the year 1908 perfectly fits the time period for a KEVII stamp, who reigned from 1901-1910. There was another example of an inverted year in a CDS postmark on Gavin's WW postmark thread recently, made by tobben63, in case you think that my idea is too far-fetched to be possible. thestampforum.boards.net/post/73443/thread |
|
|
|
Post by tallanent on Apr 5, 2019 9:34:08 GMT
Well, I suppose you can all choose to ignore me, as many do, but I am telling you that the year is "08" and it is inverted relative to the rest of the CDS. If you look closely, and you read the number as "80", you will notice that the slightly smaller loop of the eight is on the bottom, when it should be on the top. I think that this clearly points to the fact that the year has been inverted. It is not 1880 or 1980, it is 1908. In addition, the year 1908 perfectly fits the time period for a KEVII stamp, who reigned from 1901-1910. There was another example of an inverted year in a CDS postmark on Gavin's postcard or WW postmark thread recently, in case you think that my idea is too far-fetched to be possible. As I was tagged in this thread - thought I had better answer .... I totally agree with has been said .... the overprint appear to be correct and the post showing the points to look at and compare was a great help As far as the postmark goes -- it looks OK to me and for the reasons already stated, (loops on the figure 8), I agree this is no more than an inverted year slug on the device |
|
vikingeck
Member
Posts: 3,546
What I collect: Samoa, Tobacco theme, Mail in Wartime, anything odd and unusual!
|
Post by vikingeck on May 9, 2019 7:05:49 GMT
Coming a bit late to the show can I make two general observations.
I am always a bit concerned when people try to decide which black mark is on top of which. Stan says the overprint almost looks on top of the postmark , which we know cannot be ( unless a modern forger is at work) .
I don’t believe in many instances I could tell which was on top . Not that it matters in this case which we accept is an optical illusion.
My second observation is the colour of the stamp. From 1880 to 1910 , obsessed with fraudulent cleaning and re-use GB printed stamps in fugitive inks, green, lilac and red which fade seriously in water. Soaking as we all do to remove backing paper kills the colour .
the true green is like the mint stamp shown by nl1947
|
|
hdm1950
Member
Posts: 1,886
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
|
Post by hdm1950 on Jan 2, 2024 23:32:38 GMT
The first mail of the New Year did not disappoint as these auction wins arrived. I have quite a collection of offices abroad already so I was pleasantly surprised that the auction house had many lots that included items I was missing. It was like they looked in my album and knew what I needed.  |
|
