khj
Member 
Posts: 1,446 
|
Post by khj on Dec 26, 2020 18:13:05 GMT
Note: I have moved the relevant posts from an introduction thread to this new one so the information will be more widely seen. If a change of thread title is required by any of the participants, please let me know. Londonbus1. One of the reason I wanted to join here was to query Mauritius reprints where I want to find out how to spot fakes and if there were any other reprints when the plate resurface in 1930 other than the 1912. Welcome to TSF! Just to clarify, the plate resurfaced in 1912, and was sold to Burrus by private sale in 1930. After it was displayed publicly in 1935, it "disappeared" until it was re-discovered by the Burrus family and put on public display again in 2015. It was sold, I think in 2016 for something like €1,300,000. As far as I know, it has not been used to make reprints once Burrus acquired it in 1930 -- the value of the plate and damage risk far outweighs any possible profit from making reprints from the original plate. It'd be almost impossible to duplicate the paper & ink, especially with modern spectroscopy methods. For those who enjoy Raman spectroscopy as a side-hobby: Identification by Raman Microscopy of Pigments on Early Postage Stamps
I'll try to post a more detailed history and pictures of the plates a little later this weekend when I have some more time. |
|
|
|
Post by daniel on Dec 26, 2020 19:50:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simoncpage on Dec 26, 2020 20:43:23 GMT
Hi everyone thanks for the warm welcome - wasn’t expecting that! Here is the the BBC4 documentary: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0477j4lIt doesn’t seem to be available now and not sure where else it might be available the part that I found really interesting is potentially one of the early owners of the magenta destroying another one to make it more valuable and I never thought about collectors doing that but what an interesting concept there is also lots of other historic details which I found really interesting. I started off collecting British Guiana and the 1853 1 and 4 cent which are my current fave stamps mainly because there is from what I can tell only one forgery ever made (not to say there aren’t modern ones now) which I have and it is terrible! But also it is a very attractive stamp and even today looks brilliant. I also managed to pick them up in a phone auction for £75 with a large collection of other stamps which I found quite sad as looking through I could tell it was a collection of a husband and wife and it was sad it had not been kept in the family as it was obvious how much time and effort had been spent arranging and managing it. Daniel it was your post where you posted 2 Cinderella’s and a forgery that I was interested in. The first 2 I have in my collection and the German replica is really very good but macro view you can see where it fails - however it is the last one which I believe I own which is really exceptional (better than the Peter Winter forgeries, the German Cinderella and others from a modern forgerer I know). The ink is brighter and a lot thicker than my other reprint, which really lets it down (which I believe to be real and has reprint stamped on the reverse) but also I have noticed the corners are more curved on the plate impression which doesn’t really match the photos of the plate which show little curvature. That said the detail of this is really exceptional in my humble opinion which is why I was interested to try and find out if it is infact a fake or a 1930’s reprint or a reprint produced by creating a replica plate from a high resolution scan of the original plate maybe and that would explain how it is so accurate? It was purchased on eBay for a low price which would flag this being a replica albeit the reseller is adamant that it is real and he is an expert in these sheetlets...I have pushed him to try and backup his claim and explain the plate curvature in the corners not matching only for him to block me and so I haven’t really got anywhere in uncovering the truth. There is a good video on YouTube where some experts from the virtual stampex 2020 mention the forgeries (12 mins in): Thanks again for the welcome! |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,446
|
Post by khj on Dec 26, 2020 21:21:53 GMT
Actually, I just checked quickly, and everything I was going to type and most of the pics I was going to show are in the May 2015 issue of American Philatelist. If you don't have that article, I can email you the snippet from the magazine. Just PM me.
But in a nutshell, the 1912 "Stocken" reprints are distinguished visually from originals by a modification to the plate (e.g., on the 2d lower right ornament there is a small horizontal line). The few color reprints made were marked "REPRINT" in the same color on the back. The black reprint is not marked. The 1930s reprint around the time of the sale, is stated in 2 sources but no picture/sale of the reprints is listed (as far as I know). Based on the text, the reprints supposedly exist -- but I don't know of any reports of anyone actually having seen the reprints. I assume they will have the same distinguishing plate mark as the 1912 reprint, if they exist. Does anybody know of any reports of actually having seen/listed the 1930 reprints?
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,446
|
Post by khj on Dec 26, 2020 23:24:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simoncpage on Dec 27, 2020 0:45:02 GMT
Brilliant thanks for this. Yep I have both colours and they have reprint with the same colour on back on those versions so I suspected real.
I was under the impression checking closely that the thicker ink was the issue with why they didn’t match precisely as you can clearly see because of that the detail just isn’t there. I’ll try and show you some macro shots or do you think the thickness of the applied ink would have no bearing and it’s definitely fake?
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
Post by simoncpage on Dec 27, 2020 0:52:55 GMT
Looking at that picture of them side by side you are definitely right so one I now noticed which I should have noticed before as obvious is the dot direct under the nostril of the ‘fake’ where it is white but the other doesn’t have any white at all and regardless of how thick the ink is applied which I initially thought.
I think I’m pretty certain this is a good but not great fake now.
I wonder how old it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Dec 27, 2020 9:25:06 GMT
It might be useful to members of this forum if the pictures posted elsewhere are posted here? Then we would know what you are talking about  . |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,446
|
Post by khj on Dec 27, 2020 17:38:58 GMT
I will see if I can download the OP's pictures from the other place and insert them into my post above a little later. It is several pics. I wasn't sure if he was going to answer here or there, but apparently he replied here. So yeah, it would make sense. Thanks for pointing that out michael . [EDIT: done, see my previous post above] |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Dec 28, 2020 11:51:32 GMT
Thanks khj The early Mauritius stamps are always interesting to read about. The expert on this is David R. Beech, a fellow of the RPSL. The excellent Feldman document refers to him as the main contibutor. A good read is his paper in the London Philatelist 2012, Vol.121, p2-9: "All reprints from the plate during and after 1912 show two small alterations made to show that the impressions are indeed reprints. On the 2d value this takes the form of a small line from the centre of the lower-right corner ornament (as printed) to the margin (Figs 4 and 5). Reprints were apparently made again in about 1930 probably in association with the sale via H.R. Harmer at this time. The difference between the 1912 and 1930 reprints is unknown - the author has never knowingly seen the latter. The evidence for this is to be found in the auction description of Lot 1004 in the H.R. Harmer Limited sale of the A.J. Stevens collection of Mauritius which says 'Reprinted impressions of the 1847, Post Office 1d and 2d, made from the original copper plate circa 1930, in orange-red and deep blue' (Ref. 24). A similar statement is made in the Burrus Robson Lowe Limited auction catalogue (Ref. 25)." I gather from this that the only known reprints from the original plate are those printed in 1912 with reprint on the reverse and those on Ebay, "guaranteed as being from the original plate", are forgeries. The problem with buying 'modern' forgeries is that it lines the forger's pocket with money and encourages them to print more and swindle more people. |
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,446
|
Post by khj on Dec 28, 2020 19:15:35 GMT
Yes, Beech wrote the APS article as well. It is noteworthy that he also states "the author has never knowingly seen the latter" -- which I assume is still the case(?).
Without documentation/provenance, any candidate for the 1930 reprint would be difficult to prove given the lack of public/published identification. But, you never know...
|
|
stanley64
Member
Posts: 1,818
What I collect: Canada, USA, Netherlands, Portugal & Colonies, Antarctic Territories and anything that catches my eye...
|
Post by stanley64 on Jan 4, 2021 12:13:29 GMT
Given the nature of this thread, Early Mauritius....Reprints & forgeries and the sentiment shared earlier by one of our Admin (s) about adding to existing threads being the preferred method, rather than creating another thread of the same subject matter, I suggest this thread be incorporated into our thread on a similar topic - " Forgeries, Facsimiles , Reproductions & Blackprints."
There is some good information, on topic and well-suited for an existing thread, let us try and keep it together...
Happy collecting! |
|
banknoteguy
Member
Posts: 284
What I collect: 19th Century US, High denomination US (> $1), 19th century covers US, Indian Feudatory States and most recently I acquired a BigBlue [with about 5,000 stamps] and pristine pages.
|
Post by banknoteguy on Aug 19, 2021 14:11:43 GMT
My 2nd post in this forum. Early Mauritius is fascinating. But I can only afford reprints or facsimiles. The book by Helen Morgan (Blue Mauritius) is well worth reading.
Below is a comparison of a genuine Post Office 2d (IX in Morgan's census - Swedish Museum example) UL with a fake from eBay that is billed as genuine (NOT) UR and then below those two are a German facsimile (mine, labelled as facsimile on back) LL and an unknown fake on cover that seems to be from the same source as the eBay fake. If anyone knows anything about the unknown fake I would be interested to know where it came from.
 |
|
|
|
Post by daniel on Aug 19, 2021 17:51:15 GMT
|
|
One of the reason I wanted to join here was to query Mauritius reprints where I want to find out how to spot fakes and if there were any other reprints when the plate resurface in 1930 other than the 1912. 
.
