Yes: a different use of the English languagemukulgarga wrote:One more disclosure-- world-phil mentions "Not authenticated" only on the forgeries and never on the genuine stamps

Moderator: Volunteer Moderator Team
Yes: a different use of the English languagemukulgarga wrote:One more disclosure-- world-phil mentions "Not authenticated" only on the forgeries and never on the genuine stamps
Jason, watch out for the Morvi. There are some bad ones out there we were discussing recently here:jadrake wrote:Yeah - I only buy the "safe" ones from him.... ie. Morvi, Orchha (tall crappy 1935 series) stamps. I passed on the Barwani, but was wondering if you saw them and were going to weigh in on them.I did buy a 1930 Charkhari which I think is safe, but we'll see. All unused so I don't need to worry about this cancel silliness. And I thought removed Revenue cancels were bad.... faking ringed cancels......
Birder, the ISC Bamra Handbook says '1891?' as the year of issue. It says there are two settings of this Type E3 envelope:birder wrote:This one should be genuine.
I would like to know the year this was issued.
Thanks and regards.
That's a nice example of SG 1. It looks to be a 'chatter' print: either the paper was dropped back onto the wet printing plate, and was rescued before more harm was done, or the printing plate bounced when it was applied, giving the partial doubling of the impression.psphani wrote:Ok i have these jhalawar specimens
First here is a SG 1 jhalawar stamp that seems like overprint, this is on laid paper as in the original
Here is the actual SG 1 for reference
Second here is SG 2 jhalawar that is a very clear print, only one in my collection, the paper is not laid. Its thin paper, not even wove.
Here is an actual SG 2 for reference
Very nice. Thanks.tonymacg wrote:
Birder, the ISC Bamra Handbook says '1891?' as the year of issue. It says there are two settings of this Type E3 envelope:
Setting 1: The two lines at the right hand end of the trunk end together
Setting 2: The top line of the right hand end of the trunk finishes about 1¼ mm short of the other.
This appears to make yours Setting 2. In the Handbook, Ray Benns says both Settings appeared to be equally common.
Here is my Setting 1 envelope, to complement your Setting 2:
And while we're on Bamra, I might as well show the '1890?' Type E2 envelope:
Front:
and the back flap (the rest of the back is blank):
Another real original from Bamra!
I am not able to see embossing on most of these stamps save 2.Moreover orange color in the last row is not listed as far as I can see. So does that make them Imitations and reprints?tonymacg wrote:It's a process of elimination.mukulgarga wrote: Which of these are reprints and which are genuine? What's the criteria to separate reprints (as you said as of now) from the Genuine ones?
First, sort out any with the circular embossing. They must be reprints/imitations, because the legitimate stamps were never regularly issued with that type of embossing.
Next, compare the types with the genuine types. Any that are similar but not matching, must be imitations. I suspect the ¼ Anna blacks in the second row will fall into this category.
Finally, look at the perforations. The perforations on that first ½(?) Anna green are impossible. Bhopal didn't use a 'normal' perforator like that during the original period.
Whatever are left after that screening process are probably OK. Of course, as I've been saying, just what should be classed as a pure 'reprint/imitation' and what as a postal issue isn't quite clear. Some stamps traditionally classified as imitations, don't seem to be.
This a Type 15 alright: SG 51mukulgarga wrote:Any idea about the SG No.? Embossing is right, color is OK. But the design does not match either T15 or T16.
I'd need to see individual scans of these, but they could well be SG 59. The colour of SG 59/60 is fairly variable.mukulgarga wrote:
I am not able to see embossing on most of these stamps save 2.Moreover orange color in the last row is not listed as far as I can see. So does that make them Imitations and reprints?
By the way i like the clear print of forged SG 2 over the genuine one. A beginner would think the forged one is the genuine. I have seen lots of forged indian states but have never seen such a clear impression that almost feels genuine if not for the paper.tonymacg wrote:That's a nice example of SG 1. It looks to be a 'chatter' print: either the paper was dropped back onto the wet printing plate, and was rescued before more harm was done, or the printing plate bounced when it was applied, giving the partial doubling of the impression.psphani wrote:Ok i have these jhalawar specimens
First here is a SG 1 jhalawar stamp that seems like overprint, this is on laid paper as in the original
Here is the actual SG 1 for reference
Second here is SG 2 jhalawar that is a very clear print, only one in my collection, the paper is not laid. Its thin paper, not even wove.
Here is an actual SG 2 for reference
That SG 2 on wove paper is a forgery of course. I have an unused example, as well as this 'used' (genuine alongside)
with the most absurd attempt at a Jhalawar cancellation I've ever seen
There is a whole thread on poisonous stamps and Paris Green :jadrake wrote:If you lick the sage-green will you start to feel a little "funky"? Does it have the same special ingredients in the pigments as our friends in the emerald-greens?
-Jason
A nice find, then, and it must be constant at that position. Have you seen a R4/4 without the break in the line? (In other words, was the line always defective? Or did it develop the break during the course of printing?)psphani wrote:Here is a complete sheet of Kishangarh 8 Anna, SG 68. Notice the stamp in 4/4 and has a line missing in the frame. I have noticed this error on 3 other sheets.
Don't reject them in any case. The ISC Bhopal Handbook and old versions of Gibbons list them. I have no authority whatsoever for the proposition, but ... It would seem natural that the Bhopal PO would accept them for postage if they were used, although they were prepared essentially for sale to collectors. It would also seem perfectly natural that some of them might have been issued for sale for normal use when supplies of the regular issues ran short.mukulgarga wrote:That's why I am not throwing away my so called "reprints and imitations" till the things are more clear.
Tony,tonymacg wrote:A nice find, then, and it must be constant at that position. Have you seen a R4/4 without the break in the line? (In other words, was the line always defective? Or did it develop the break during the course of printing?)psphani wrote:Here is a complete sheet of Kishangarh 8 Anna, SG 68. Notice the stamp in 4/4 and has a line missing in the frame. I have noticed this error on 3 other sheets.
The Jhalawar SG2 is definitely a forgery. Just try reading the text in Hindi or Urdu. All the letters are wrong...psphani wrote:Tony,
The J&K and Bhopal issues are reprints and not forgeries. Now is the Jhalawar SG 2 a forgery or a reprint? If its a forgery its very very good. If they had done it on laid paper i would have passed it as genuine.
birder,birder wrote:The Jhalawar SG2 is definitely a forgery. Just try reading the text in Hindi or Urdu. All the letters are wrong...psphani wrote:Tony,
The J&K and Bhopal issues are reprints and not forgeries. Now is the Jhalawar SG 2 a forgery or a reprint? If its a forgery its very very good. If they had done it on laid paper i would have passed it as genuine.
AFAIK Jhalawar never reprinted its stamps, therefore the SG 2 must be a forgery. It's certainly a very good representation of SG 2, but too good. I must have around a hundred copies of the stamp (I haven't counted thempsphani wrote:Tony,
The J&K and Bhopal issues are reprints and not forgeries. Now is the Jhalawar SG 2 a forgery or a reprint? If its a forgery its very very good. If they had done it on laid paper i would have passed it as genuine.
Yes: they're obviously different forgeries. It's rather odd that such a common stamp should be so extensively forgedpsphani wrote:birder,birder wrote:The Jhalawar SG2 is definitely a forgery. Just try reading the text in Hindi or Urdu. All the letters are wrong...psphani wrote:Tony,
The J&K and Bhopal issues are reprints and not forgeries. Now is the Jhalawar SG 2 a forgery or a reprint? If its a forgery its very very good. If they had done it on laid paper i would have passed it as genuine.
can you also look at the one i posted, there is difference in the hindi/urdu wordings on the forged one i posted vs the forged Tony posted.
wow tete-beche on SG 1 of jhalawar. Thats really impressive stuff.tonymacg wrote:Yes: they're obviously different forgeries. It's rather odd that such a common stamp should be so extensively forgedpsphani wrote:birder,birder wrote:The Jhalawar SG2 is definitely a forgery. Just try reading the text in Hindi or Urdu. All the letters are wrong...psphani wrote:Tony,
The J&K and Bhopal issues are reprints and not forgeries. Now is the Jhalawar SG 2 a forgery or a reprint? If its a forgery its very very good. If they had done it on laid paper i would have passed it as genuine.
can you also look at the one i posted, there is difference in the hindi/urdu wordings on the forged one i posted vs the forged Tony posted.I can understand all the forgeries of the Jammu & Kashmir Circulars, like
The Circulars are scarce at best, and very rare at worst. But Jhalawar SG 2 is still only a £1.25 item mint. Why has it attracted all this attention.
By the way, there are also some good modern forgeries of SG 2 in circulation:
This fooled me until I found exactly the same paper being used for some Jammu fakes. There are accompanying forgeries of SG 1 as well:
The paper is a rather thick, springy mock 'native' paper without laid lines:
That's what I thought when I saw it on salepsphani wrote:
wow tete-beche on SG 1 of jhalawar. Thats really impressive stuff.
Obviously utterly philatelic, but it still went for $US327.mukulgarga wrote:Too beautiful for comfort![]()
The letters and the text in the third image are totally wrong. This would not be genuine.psphani wrote:Ok i have these jhalawar specimens
First here is a SG 1 jhalawar stamp that seems like overprint, this is on laid paper as in the original
Here is the actual SG 1 for reference
Second here is SG 2 jhalawar that is a very clear print, only one in my collection, the paper is not laid. Its thin paper, not even wove.
Here is an actual SG 2 for reference
Tony,tonymacg wrote:Obviously utterly philatelic, but it still went for $US327.mukulgarga wrote:Too beautiful for comfort![]()
I had a cautious nibble at it, but I wasn't going to pay serious money for a confection like this.
Rakesh,rakeshk wrote: One more thing - I read in the Cochin Anchal rules published during the issuance of the new Cochin Raja stamps an instruction to postal handlers to take special care in making sure stamps are not used un-necessarily and to use the largest denomination stamp possible to frank the item..
No, what that means for eg: is that instead of using two 1 puttan stamps, the postal authorities are supposed to use one 2 puttan stamp, so that the state could save an extra stamp. Remember that the state got the First Raja stamps printed at considerable expense from Perkins Bacon in London, and as Tony said, it would have cost the exchequer the same amount to print a 2 pies stamp and a 3a stamp, so postal authorities were encouraged to use the highest denomination possible.mukulgarga wrote:Rakesh,rakeshk wrote: One more thing - I read in the Cochin Anchal rules published during the issuance of the new Cochin Raja stamps an instruction to postal handlers to take special care in making sure stamps are not used un-necessarily and to use the largest denomination stamp possible to frank the item..
Could you please explain it more. I do not understand! "Used un-necessarily" means obliterated excessively? Right?
Thanks, Tony, for such quick work. I believe I got this as part of a mixed lot in the early '90s and didn't pay £20 as a single item. A shame that I'm not £1000 nearer the new boiler, thoughtonymacg wrote:Very bad news, I'm afraid, Andy: the stamps and cover are complete fabrications.
Users browsing this forum: Fleurieu55, gavin-h, honza, nigelc, Number-O-Ne, Simon1967, Spartacus, Stamp collector and 10 guests