Banging the drum for the Uglies

tonymacg · **Posted:** Fri Jun 01, 2012 15:10:11 pm

Some more from that home of the weird and wonderful, eBay:

Now, apart from the fact that both SG 1 and 2 were printed in strips, and aren't recorded as occurring tête-bêche, these stamps are all on a rough native paper, and the ¼ Annas at least all appear to be from the same cliché, cliché 12.

The stamps appear to be genuine types and the print quality appears to resemble that of genuine Jhalawar issues. For the time being, I'm guessing they might be proofs of some kind. As soon as I have the time (work getting in the way of Life again), I'll look more closely at them, and see if I can identify the cliché(s) used for the 1 Paisas.

In the meantime, has anyone else seen these? Any comments?

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2012 02:02:04 am

My first copy of 1a SG 34Bb [perf 8.5, from setting VIII]

jadrake · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2012 07:18:48 am

Congratulation - you stole that one from me on Ebay (I was winning till this morning), Just be careful you don't overpay on these items. You can get a lot of them at Gibbons so make sure you don't go much beyond cat. The realization on the Barwani SG7 was unreal.... $149GBP? Last time I checked Rana Ranjit Singh was not Gandhi......

-Jason

tonymacg · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:50:40 am

Those late printings of the Barwani 1 Anna perf 8½ are quite interesting. They were the last proper issue from Barwani - the Setting 9 ¼ Annas were purely philatelic - and they were used:

unlike the last ¼ Annas. Though why the Times of India suddenly started using that perforator is a minor mystery.

Some of the sales of Barwani items made absorbing reading, I must say. Mostly pretty much in line with what I would have expected: the common items went cheaply, and the scarce ones went very well, at up around full catalogue. SG 7

isn't a very easy stamp, and $US227.79, or around full Gibbons price, is pretty gratifying.

There were a few I found inexplicable. An SG 6a

at $US39? Gibbons' price of £5 looks about right to me, particularly when the SG 6 sold for $US4.95. The SG 13

was incorrectly numbered as SG 14, but $US9.55 for an unused example looks extravagant against a Gibbons price of £1.60.

But I'm not complaining ... :lol:

And no: I wasn't bidding on any of these.

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:37:09 am

jadrake wrote:

Congratulation - you stole that one from me on Ebay (I was winning till this morning), Just be careful you don't overpay on these items. -Jason

Sorry Jadrake but you were way below me

. There was another bloke besides me who was bidding above Gibbons.
Well Gibbons doesn't have SG34Bb with them and didn't have it for as long as I remember. Besides that I have not seen it coming up for sale in the last 6 months that I remember.

tonymacg · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:03:18 pm

Jason, if you're really keen for a copy of SG 34BB, I can let you have this copy

for $US28 (which will probably be full cat. in the 2013 Gibbons :lol:

).

However, this does not mean that I'm disposing of my Barwani

jadrake · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2012 16:39:51 pm

Buy low and sell high eh Tony? Thanks for the offer.... but no I think I'll hold off and wait 35 years and then purchase it. :-)

I've got lots of time and lots of other material to acquire in the meantime. The only stamps I am willing to acquire over catalogue are Niger Coast Protectorate stamps (the provisionals) - but this might be more of a personal vendetta after years of being confounded at auction!

tonymacg · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2012 17:10:13 pm

I won't deny I'm slightly relieved, Jason

I don't care as much for these Devi Singh types as for the earlier Ranjitsingh printings, but ... The position with Barwani is probably similar to that with Niger Coast: thin demand, but thin supply as well, which makes catalogue prices rather woolly guesses at best. If one needs the stamps, the best strategy is to glance at Gibbons, and then go ahead and buy anyway.

Micky · **Posted:** Sat Jun 02, 2012 22:56:11 pm

Hi guys, I might of overdosed on making post today but I found these online are any of these considered ugly and interesting uglies :lol:

, sorry new to this and might stay clear looks confusing for my little brain.

Michael

tonymacg · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 01:17:48 am

Michael, nothing leaps out at me as obviously rare. You'd need to examine the papers of a couple of them: the Cochin and Jammu & Kashmir.

A nice way to dip your toe in the Ugly Sea, as long as they didn't cost more than a couple of dollars

Are you tempted?

Micky · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 01:34:22 am

I just lost my temptation, the guy wants $65 for the lot. I will just walk on by it's better to steer clear of the unknown

Thanks for helping tonymacg

Michael

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 02:25:08 am

Still searching for SGF5b (Blue Green) as Imperf between vertical pair. Couldn't find any on sale. Can Anybody show me another example of this for comparison's sake!!

tonymacg · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:07:14 am

Micky wrote:

:lol: I just lost my temptation, the guy wants $65 for the lot. I will just walk on by it's better to steer clear of the unknown

Thanks for helping tonymacg

Michael

Micky, I'd have trouble walking away. It's hard to walk and roll around the floor laughing at the same time

Now, if you'd like to be led into temptation, I'm sure I could put together a small lot of equivalent worthlessness that you could have for free. Just email me, and we'll make the arrangements.

tonymacg · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:35:27 am

Mukulgarga, assuming that the blue-green Idar postal-fiscals were printed in the same sheet format as the yellow-green

the same type of imperf between pairs shouldn't be all that rare. I suspect, though, that the blue-greens are a little scarcer than the roughly 4x Gibbons rates them at, and so the imperf betweens would be scarcer still.

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:26:02 am

Tony we can just assume that blue greens were printed in the same as yellow-green format unless we see a sheet of the blue-green. Even SG is not clear about it as they do not mention Blue-Green Imperf btw vertical pair separately like they have mentioned Yello-Green.Have you seen one before?

tonymacg · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:37:28 am

I think the assumption that these were all printed in a similar manner is reasonable, because the contemporary postage stamps were also being printed in larger sheets which were cut down:

But no, I don't have an imperf between pair of the blue-green, and, offhand, I don't recall seeing one.

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 01:44:31 am

Genuine??? Seller says it has full white gum!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... TQ:US:1123

jadrake · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 03:21:29 am

Mukulgarga - I am pretty sure this is not a real copy... the printing method seems all wrong (the details in the eyes for example are just blurs). The color is wrong for SG#3, and it doesn't look right for SG#4 Like it was photocopied and gum was applied. I am owner of exactly "zero" of these stamps (my single attempt was not sufficient - see above) but some things just have a feel about them. I would pass on it (unless you want a reprint or whatever it is)

I'll let the experts weigh in for a final say. You have five days. :-)

-Jason

psphani · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 04:54:39 am

mukulgarga wrote:

Genuine??? Seller says it has full white gum!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... TQ:US:1123

I agree with jason. Does not look genuine. Wait for the expert's comments.

birder · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 05:04:06 am

jadrake wrote:

...... some things just have a feel about them......

I might be wrong but I just do not feel comfortable with this stamp.

Timbres · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 05:08:47 am

It looks a lot like the SG4 Tonymacq recently sold: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=37499&p=2782823&hilit=JASDAN#p2782823, blurs and all. But like you guys, I'm no expert so let's wait to see what the "sperts" say.

birder · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 05:25:26 am

Timbres wrote:

It looks a lot like the SG4 Tonymacq recently sold: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=37499&p=2782823&hilit=JASDAN#p2782823, blurs and all. But like you guys, I'm no expert so let's wait to see what the "sperts" say.

Timbres,

The perfs in the two stamps match. Plus the seller has "guaranteed" the genuineness of his stamp. These are the two points in favour. Everything else is against. If you look closely, the colour difference between the two stamps is massive. But then to be fair, it might be attributable to malfunction on the part of the scanner (Yes it happens..more frequently than you think). Also there are other differences. The numeral "1" on the right top corner should be enclosed in a square composed of white lines. In Tony's example, it is. In the seller's scan, it is not. There are many other similar differences.

All in all, there does exist a small possibility that the stamp is genuine. But since it makes me uncomfortable, I will not put my money on it.

Thanks and regards.

Timbres · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 06:23:48 am

Birder,

I see all that you have said, but it just seems like the one on offer now has been scanned at a contrast that is much harsher, leading to it looking the way it does. And it's no secret that certain colors are nearly impossible to match from one scan to the other, as you've pointed out. So I'm not too put off by the color - it's not THAT far off. As for the box....that is going to vary as well, just based on how inked the plate is at printing; same holds true for the eyes, making one look blobbier than the other. And the absorption of softer paper vs. hard will also alter the crispness of the image. At the end of the day, it only catalogs at US$25 or so. I'm not saying that you go for it Birder, nor am I vouching for its genuineness. As I said, I'm hardly an expert. I just don't see anything that screams an obvious "FAKE" to me, that's all. Unlike a court of law, in the stamp world of the uglies, you are GUILTY until proven innocent.

domburd · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:15:05 am

Had a pleasant run in with a local taxi driver the other day who spoke fluent Urdu. He was able to answer a question that's been nagging me for a while about some early Hyderabad covers I have. They all date from the years immediately prior to the issuing of stamps (1869) and bear the oval intaglio seal of the town from which the cover was sent. Three of these have the same line of Urdu written near the seal and I have often wondered what it meant. The taxi driver told me it meant that the 'writer' went by the name of 'Himat Ram Wakor (or Waklor) (forgive my transliteration but I was scribbling this down as fast as I could :roll:

). This is one of the covers...

and with the signatures from the three covers cropped out...

Covers bearing these seals are uncommon enough, so to find three, purchased from different parts of the globe in the space of less than half a year, all bearing the same sender's name strikes me as being a remarkable coincidence, one confounded even more by the fact that our dear Tony outbid me last year on eBay for a cover bearing SG1 which also had the same sender's name...

But then again, perhaps the whole thing means something different and I'm getting the wrong of the stick, so to speak. If any of our language specialists on Stampboards can corroborate or correct then I would be grateful.

tonymacg · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:24:40 am

OK, now, first up: here's the Jasdan stamp we're discussing:

A few comments on the appearance of the stamp:

This seller, beattle123, seems to have the worst scanning technique in the world. I've seen a lot of his offerings, and the scans invariably look horrible.

In his early days, he was offering a lot of material that appeared to suffer from severe condition problems. They might have been stored in Chinese stockbooks in a place subject to periodic flooding

That this is offered with 'full white gum' worries me, then. The more so since Jasdan stamps very often have the backing paper adhering to the stamp. The hinge trace might be a clever bit of double bluff over a re-gummed stamp.

The differences in design could perfectly well be due to differences in the cliché used. There were four, and they're identifiable from small design differences. The inking also seems to be heavier on the right side of the stamp.

So I'd tentatively pass this one as probably genuine, but with questions over its condition.

Now, as to which it is - SG 3 or 4? - here is a scan of the SG 3 sheet from the recent Murray Payne auction:

Even allowing for the problems with the scans, I think the answer's pretty clear. The eBay stamp is an SG 4, if anything

tonymacg · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:33:16 am

Domburd, I am now going to go and sit in a corner until lunchtime, to do penance

But the Devil made me do it. That Hyderabad SG 1 cover just looked so nice, I couldn't resist ...

birder · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 13:02:37 pm

domburd wrote:

Three of these have the same line of Urdu written near the seal and I have often wondered what it meant.

....amazing coincidence. All covers are from the same sender.

The line in question reads

"Marsala Hanumat Ram Wakalor" on two of the covers and "Marsala Hanumat Ram Wakaore" on one. The word "Marsala" in Urdu means sender.

Nice covers. Thanks for sharing.

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 14:53:58 pm

http://www.ebay.com/itm/380442383566?ss ... 1439.l2649

tonymacg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 15:39:22 pm

To save everyone scrambing for eBay, mukulgarga is referring to a perfectly nice (and genuine) copy of Charkhari, SG 30. This sold for £104 against a catalogue value of £85. There were 19 bids from 7 bidders; the successful bidder had a feedback score of 35.

At the same time, the same seller offered a (nice, genuine) copy of Charkhari SG 29. This sold for £115 against a catalogue value of £90. There were 18 bids from seven bidders; the successful bidder had a feedback score of 184 (and the underbidder was the winner of the previous lot. The winner of this lot was the underbidder on the previous lot).

The seller, bygonesofbridlington, appears to be perfectly halal, and I very much doubt there was any shill bidding going on. This makes me wonder what this cover of SG 30

I picked up from Murray Payne in April for £475 should be worth now :lol:

Not a beautiful example of the stamp, but ...

birder · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 15:57:13 pm

...superb Charkhari cover.

Kya Baat Hai Janaab !!!! "What a great item Sir !!!!"

Tussi Chha Gaye !!! " You rule !!!"

tonymacg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 16:03:12 pm

Well, modesty forbids me to compare myself with that certain old age pensioner in London who is also having some sort of celebration, but ... :lol:

Timbres · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 16:16:49 pm

tonymacg wrote:

Well, modesty forbids me to compare myself with that certain old age pensioner in London who is also having some sort of celebration, but ... :lol:

She's much more a lady than you are Tony :!:

tonymacg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 16:22:43 pm

Timbres, this a family board, so I don't think I should take this further :lol:

tonymacg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 17:23:08 pm

Digging around in the Jammu & Kashmir lot from eBay that yielded the SG 103 I showed above, I also found this

Obviously a forgery of SG 140 - the ¼ Anna postcard rate stamp. Alongside a genuine copy, the differences are glaring:

The lettering is all wrong, and the stamp is much too wide

However, it has what looks like a genuine postal cancellation. A postal forgery, perhaps?

birder · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 17:47:00 pm

tonymacg wrote:

Digging around in the Jammu & Kashmir lot from eBay that yielded the SG 103 I showed above, I also found this

Obviously a forgery of SG 140 - the ¼ Anna postcard rate stamp. Alongside a genuine copy, the differences are glaring:

The lettering is all wrong, and the stamp is much too wide

However, it has what looks like a genuine postal cancellation. A postal forgery, perhaps?

A comparison of the six star shaped ornaments Four in the corners and two in the central oval.. interesting differences.

tonymacg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 18:02:36 pm

I wonder if it was a good enough forgery to get past the J&K post office staff. If it's just a common or garden variety forgery, well, I have enough of those already

But if it managed to pass through the post (defrauding the State Post Office of a miserable 3 Pies), then I like it much better!

peterh · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 20:45:46 pm

tonymacg wrote:

At the same time, the same seller offered a (nice, genuine) copy of Charkhari SG 29. This sold for £115 against a catalogue value of £90. There were 18 bids from seven bidders; the successful bidder had a feedback score of 184 (and the underbidder was the winner of the previous lot. The winner of this lot was the underbidder on the previous lot).

For anyone looking for SG 29, Gibbons have one in their list for £85.00 at present.

...seems like eBay bidders getting carried away by the thrill of the chase?

tonymacg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 20:58:20 pm

I know where I'd prefer to buy my copy of Charkhari SG 29 ... and it wouldn't be eBay, either

Definitely a case of folie à deux

PeterS · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 21:41:28 pm

Timbres wrote:

tonymacg wrote:

Well, modesty forbids me to compare myself with that certain old age pensioner in London who is also having some sort of celebration, but ... :lol:

She's much more a lady than you are Tony :!:

Quite true...however, Tony could certainly be described as an old woman.

tonymacg · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2012 23:48:03 pm

That line about pots and kettles comes to mind ...

Timbres · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 01:37:28 am

You're both black!!! I get it.

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 02:11:53 am

Received in Post

SG14

and SG26

mikeg · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 04:13:55 am

Tony- The cancel on that forgery is dated '18 OC' :!:

Sefi & Mortimer describe a series of forgeries made by postal officials in 1892 which were cancelled like this with genuine cancellers.

To bad they are not illustrated, but this must be one of those.

PeterS · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 09:28:57 am

tonymacg wrote:

That line about pots and kettles comes to mind ...

Tony, how many times have I told you?? If you need a kettle to smoke your pot then you are using too much!

tonymacg · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:05:19 am

mikeg wrote:

Tony- The cancel on that forgery is dated '18 OC' :!:

Sefi & Mortimer describe a series of forgeries made by postal officials in 1892 which were cancelled like this with genuine cancellers.

To bad they are not illustrated, but this must be one of those.

This could very well be one of those. The lot it came in had a wonderful selection of bad eggs of one sort or another: reprints, Brighton forgeries and forgeries not elsewhere specified. I'll have to look up S&M (

) to see what else I can find.

If we accept the theory that the Missing Die forgeries of the Circulars

were also the work of crooked post office officials, the Jammu & Kashmir State Post Office must have been a lively old place.

tonymacg · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:13:34 am

mukulgarga wrote:

Received in Post

SG14

and SG26

Ah, yes - magnificent things like these show up those tired old Australian 'Roos and George V Heads for the mere pretenders they are :lol:

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 16:09:17 pm

Some Feudatory State stamp lots are up for sale on ebay by hildajohanne ( Feedback Score Of 420).
J&k lot is here
http://www.ebay.com/itm/200769451876?ss ... 1438.l2649

Are the stamps there genuine or reprints?? :roll:

tonymacg · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 16:54:32 pm

The scans are pathetically small, but from what I can see of them, all the Circulars on the first page are fakes or reprints. There are also some of the Allahabad or photocopier fakes of the Jammu sheets of four, and some of the other Old and New Rectangulars also appear to be fakes. I believe there is some value in the lot, however.

I've bought one lot from this seller already - it contained the strange Jhalawar items at the start of this page, as well as mostly genuine, but low-priced items, and one or two fakes. I was happy with the price I paid for the lot, purely on the basis of the Jhalawar. (I disposed of most of the balance here on Stampboards.)

tonymacg · **Posted:** Thu Jun 07, 2012 18:11:23 pm

Having a few moments to spare, I reached into the To Do box, and pulled out a card of Bhopal SG 76 and the official imitations of them, with the new Nawab's circular embossing. (Most of them were the imitations.)

Comparing them with the ISC Bhopal Handbook, I made a small discovery. Under Imitations I11, the Handbook notes "A copy of No. I.11(c) is known with Persian "S" overprint, similar to that on the 8 Annas, but in black and on the back of the stamp." This is the overprinted 8 Annas, with the red 'S' overprint:

(SG 99)

and here is a pair and a single I found, all with the 'S' on the reverse:

Obviously, these aren't overprinted: the 'S' is handwritten. They've been cancelled, presumably by favour, with the contemporary large ornate CDS, which was also used postally:

but I can't make out the date on these 'overprinted' imitations.

Maybe some day someone will write the last word on the Indian States, but I don't expect to live to see it

mukulgarga · **Posted:** Fri Jun 08, 2012 00:31:37 am

Already 2 months have elapsed since I sent Bundi14a to BPA for expertising and still no word from them. Usually how long do they take?


*Click For Our Newest Issues*	*Click for our Current Auction*	Internet Auctions-Buy & Sell Stamps	Melbourne 2013 - May 10-15

Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum

Banging the drum for the Uglies

Who is online