Banging the drum for the Uglies - Indian States stamps

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 12 Aug 2012 11:17

mukulgarga wrote:One more disclosure-- world-phil mentions "Not authenticated" only on the forgeries and never on the genuine stamps

Yes: a different use of the English language

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 12 Aug 2012 11:31

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......

Jason, watch out for the Morvi. There are some bad ones out there we were discussing recently here:

and

while these are the genuine versions:

and

And just be careful what you say about the 1935 Orchha set. In the Uglies context, I take 'crappy' to be complimentary, but ...

psphani · Post by **psphani** » 12 Aug 2012 11:51

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

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 12 Aug 2012 11:54

birder wrote:This one should be genuine.

I would like to know the year this was issued.

Thanks and regards.

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!

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 12 Aug 2012 12:11

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'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.

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

birder · Post by **birder** » 12 Aug 2012 13:07

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!

Very nice. Thanks.

mikeg · Post by **mikeg** » 12 Aug 2012 13:34

Tony- That Jhalawar SG2 forgery with 5 ring cancellation is interesting.

If the cancel is about 21mm in diameter, then it is a forgery made by Kamigata of Tokyo around 1900.

Rather unusual and the first Indian State forgery by him I have seen

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 12 Aug 2012 13:51

Mike, I don't have a complete strike of the forged cancellation, but I tried measuring it, and it appeared to be about 21 to 22 mm in diameter.

Those stamps appeared in 1886, and the Jhalawar State PO closed in 1900, so Kamigata would have had to be pretty fast on his feet. I haven't seen the cancellation on any other Indian States: odd that he would have chosen Jhalawar to practise on. Did he have any disciples who might have copied him?

mikeg · Post by **mikeg** » 12 Aug 2012 14:14

Tony- Comparing the cancel to others I have, it does look correct.

It appears that Kamigata made his worldwide forgeries for sale to foreign dealers, probably based on samples sent to him by same dealers. There were no stamp collectors in Japan at this time.

His most common work was China and Korea, which were sold on 'Tourist Sheets' similar to the ones used to sell early Japanese stamps.

I believe he stopped in 1905, when it became illegal to make forgeries in Japan.

Also, all the Japanese forgers of the time worked together, and many of their products were subcontracted to others who were engravers and printers.

mukulgarga · Post by **mukulgarga** » 12 Aug 2012 22:17

Any idea about the SG No.? Embossing is right, color is OK. But the design does not match either T15 or T16.

mukulgarga · Post by **mukulgarga** » 12 Aug 2012 22:47

tonymacg wrote:
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?

It's a process of elimination.

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.

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?

mukulgarga · Post by **mukulgarga** » 13 Aug 2012 00:33

Correction to my last post. The embossing IS there

but is very faint. It's very difficult to see with an open eye.

Any easy way to look at these embossings?

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 13 Aug 2012 00:40

mukulgarga wrote:Any idea about the SG No.? Embossing is right, color is OK. But the design does not match either T15 or T16.

This a Type 15 alright: SG 51

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 13 Aug 2012 00:50

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?

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.

The embossing is often quite hard to see, particularly in the later days of the Shah Jahan Begum device, when it must have been pretty worn. The Shah Sultan Begum device is often sharper, and easier to detect. Look for any traces of the circular rim and the central vertical line: they can stand out enough to be detectable.

When the embossing isn't clear, proceed to compare the type. Of course, always make allowances for the fact that every stamp in the sheet will be different, although they will all share basic similarities.

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 13 Aug 2012 00:52

If this thing is of any interest to you, Mike, drop me a line (and remind me of your address), and you can have it. On the whole, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about forgeries of the Indian States.

psphani · Post by **psphani** » 13 Aug 2012 01:16

tonymacg wrote:
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'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.

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

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 · Post by **tonymacg** » 13 Aug 2012 01:28

The reprints of Jammu & Kashmir usually look much nicer than the real thing, and the Missing Dies are also often a bit clearer. I'll try to remember to post some examples in the morning (it's after midnight my time, and time to switch off

)

psphani · Post by **psphani** » 13 Aug 2012 03:12

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.

Here is a enlarged version

compare it to the other stamps in the sheet

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 13 Aug 2012 11:44

Here are a couple of specimens of originals and reprints from Kammu & Kashmir:

The watercolours - an original 1 Anna (SG 3) and a reprint of the ½ Anna

and in the oil colours, an original (left) and a reprint (right)

According to Frits Staal in The Stamps of Jammu and Kashmir, the sage-greens (SG 35-37 and 47) are particularly difficult. He notes that, while most reprints are clear and the originals blurred, even the reprints of the sage-greens are blurry, and the genuine originals are really dreadful prints. I believe this is a genuine ½ Anna on native paper, SG 35

(and the cheapest of the four), but I'm not entirely sure that the print quality is bad enough

jadrake · Post by **jadrake** » 13 Aug 2012 11:52

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

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 13 Aug 2012 12:10

I'm not sure what went into the sage-greens, and I'd be afraid to ask

According to Staal, 'Magnification shows that the sage green oil color consists of two distinct colors: an olive-green which is relatively flat (like the water colors) and an emerald green that projects from the surface in globular oily spots.'

Doesn't sound very appetising.

birder · Post by **birder** » 13 Aug 2012 13:22

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

There is a whole thread on poisonous stamps and Paris Green :

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34609

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 13 Aug 2012 16:26

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.

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?)

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 13 Aug 2012 16:39

Just received a new batch of Bhopal from the source of the previous finds among the Reprints & Imitations, and this batch has been just as productive

First up, a listed ISC Handbook R38c (the old SG 211) (a reprint of SG 62 in deep olive):

Gibbons priced it at £1 in 1941, so it must be worth several million today

Next, a Handbook R38d (SG 62 reprinted in black)

but note that this stamp also appears to have been genuinely used. Another candidate for removal from the 'Reprints' list to the main listing.

Both these stamps have traces of the octagonal embossing.

Next, two reprints apparently unlisted in either the old Gibbons or the ISC Handbook; again, both have traces of the octagonal embossing.

First, as SG 64, but perforated:

Second, as the Handbook R38d above, but perforated:

As if the Bhopal Reprints & Imitations weren't sufficiently perplexing before ...

mukulgarga · Post by **mukulgarga** » 13 Aug 2012 23:25

That's why I am not throwing away my so called "reprints and imitations" till the things are more clear.

mukulgarga · Post by **mukulgarga** » 13 Aug 2012 23:39

Too beautiful for comfort

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 00:00

mukulgarga wrote:That's why I am not throwing away my so called "reprints and imitations" till the things are more clear.

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.

I doubt that the Bhopal PO in 1905 would have made the rigid distinction between 'authorised' issues and 'reprints/imitations' that we collectors make. After all, these were State postage stamps. Why shouldn't they be used?

psphani · Post by **psphani** » 14 Aug 2012 00:24

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.

psphani · Post by **psphani** » 14 Aug 2012 00:26

tonymacg wrote:
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.
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?)

Tony,

I have seen 3 sheets, 2 sheets of Kishangarh and one of Rajasthan. All of them had the break in the line in R4/4. It seems the line has always been broken. If anybody else has noticed otherwise please share it with us.

birder · Post by **birder** » 14 Aug 2012 00:27

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.

The Jhalawar SG2 is definitely a forgery. Just try reading the text in Hindi or Urdu. All the letters are wrong...

psphani · Post by **psphani** » 14 Aug 2012 00:30

On a seperate note, if anybody thinks this is a good error and wants to have one copy there is the SG 45 of Rajasthan on SG web site for 110 GBP. It also has the same break in R4/4.

psphani · Post by **psphani** » 14 Aug 2012 00:33

birder wrote:
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.
The Jhalawar SG2 is definitely a forgery. Just try reading the text in Hindi or Urdu. All the letters are wrong...

birder,

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.

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 00:42

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 them

) and none of them are so clearly printed.

This is another example of the importance of having seen and handled the genuine item in the Indian States. If you only had the Gibbons illustration to go by, you might think this

was the real Jammu ½ and 1 Anna sheet

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 00:59

psphani wrote:
birder wrote:
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.
The Jhalawar SG2 is definitely a forgery. Just try reading the text in Hindi or Urdu. All the letters are wrong...
birder,

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.

Yes: they're obviously different forgeries. It's rather odd that such a common stamp should be so extensively forged

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:

psphani · Post by **psphani** » 14 Aug 2012 01:11

tonymacg wrote:
psphani wrote:
birder wrote:
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.
The Jhalawar SG2 is definitely a forgery. Just try reading the text in Hindi or Urdu. All the letters are wrong...
birder,

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.
Yes: they're obviously different forgeries. It's rather odd that such a common stamp should be so extensively forged 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:

wow tete-beche on SG 1 of jhalawar. Thats really impressive stuff.

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 01:14

psphani wrote:
wow tete-beche on SG 1 of jhalawar. Thats really impressive stuff.

That's what I thought when I saw it on sale

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 10:23

mukulgarga wrote:Too beautiful for comfort

Obviously utterly philatelic, but it still went for $US327.

I had a cautious nibble at it, but I wasn't going to pay serious money for a confection like this.

birder · Post by **birder** » 14 Aug 2012 12:41

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

The letters and the text in the third image are totally wrong. This would not be genuine.

rakeshk · Post by **rakeshk** » 14 Aug 2012 14:41

tonymacg wrote:
mukulgarga wrote:Too beautiful for comfort

Obviously utterly philatelic, but it still went for $US327.

I had a cautious nibble at it, but I wasn't going to pay serious money for a confection like this.

Tony,

I must admit to having played a role in driving up that price, even though I ended up getting outbid anyways..

It looks philatelic for sure, but addressed to "Mar Julius Metharanachan, Kollam" - Father Mar Julius of the Kollam (Quilon) Seminary. Sent from Pazhanji (C-6 barred cancel corresponds to Pazhanji) on the Northern most tip of Cochin state to Kollam, in Travancore. Maybe the sender was a philatelist, or maybe the good Father was interested in stamps? Interesting item nevertheless.

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..

mukulgarga · Post by **mukulgarga** » 14 Aug 2012 15:06

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..

Rakesh,
Could you please explain it more. I do not understand! "Used un-necessarily" means obliterated excessively? Right?

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 15:26

Rakesh, the good Father must have been a philatelist, or have arranged it for one. I suppose I can understand why the cover might have gone so high: covers with SG 8/9 can't be very common.

Even so, I'm a purist at heart. I have very few philatelic covers in my collection. There are a couple, similar to this Barwani

cover, with other values. They at least have the merit of showing what was on sale in the Barwani Town PO at a late moment in time. But that Cochin cover doesn't even have that advantage.

I didn't know about that Cochin PO instruction, though. It makes perfect sense to use the smallest number of stamps possible, of the highest denominations. After all, it would have cost the same to print a 3 Pies stamp as a 2 Puttan

I'm just glad that not every State followed the same rule. It would have cost the world things like this Barwani SG 30 cover

rakeshk · Post by **rakeshk** » 14 Aug 2012 18:05

mukulgarga wrote:
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..
Rakesh,
Could you please explain it more. I do not understand! "Used un-necessarily" means obliterated excessively? Right?

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 · Post by **mukulgarga** » 14 Aug 2012 19:13

Poonch SG 48 why isn't there any cat value to it?

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 20:20

Presumably because there haven't been enough sales of the stamp to enable pricing.

Apparently Col. Douie placed the use of this paper early in the September 1887 - April 1888 period, and regarded this as a period of experimentation. This would put the stamp safely within the postal period. However some of the Jammu & Kashmir Circulars produced during its experimental period (1876-7) are not considered to have been 'postal' and aren't listed in Gibbons - like this 4 Anna yellow-olive oil volour on European laid:

The Viking · Post by **The Viking** » 14 Aug 2012 22:11

Here's a thing to inspire mixed feelings in Tony:

...as he likes Poonch but dislikes purely philatelic items. I have a question for all of you: someone has annotated in pencil the opinion that these are SG28-31. If so, why would the creator of this cover use only the top four values of a five-value set - plenty of room for the one pice stamp on the cover?

The paper looks more "toned" than "yellow" to me; could these be SG7-10? The 1884 date could match either issue.

Is it all forged?

I would also be interested in your opinions as to value*. Gibbons says "times ten" for on-cover, but I presume that refers to commercial usage. (The "£20" pencil mark dates back at least 20 years.)

All comments / opinions / discussion welcome.

--Andy

* I am going to sell on eBay some items that are outside the mainstream of my collection as my contribution to home improvements. Sigh.

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 22:25

Very bad news, I'm afraid, Andy: the stamps and cover are complete fabrications. The stamps are reasonable (only) facsimiles, but not the real thing, and that double-ringed Poonch CDS was never used in Poonch. At that period, the only Poonch cancellation in used was the 'boxes in boxes' type:

The 10x multiple would apply to commercial covers. Purely philatelic ones are less common, and often do include odd difficult values, like the 4 Anna. In fact, the 10x multiple is appropriate for ¼ Anna (postcard) and ½ Anna (basic letter rate) covers, but a genuine commercial usage of a higher value should be worth a good deal more than 10x.

The Viking · Post by **The Viking** » 14 Aug 2012 22:51

tonymacg wrote:Very bad news, I'm afraid, Andy: the stamps and cover are complete fabrications.

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, though

I shall not be polluting eBay with these forgeries. Even if I marked the back of the cover indelibly, somebody with creativity could soak it and be plus 4 "superb used" "stamps".

--Andy

tonymacg · Post by **tonymacg** » 14 Aug 2012 23:05

Now who could you be thinking of?

It's a great shame that I've had to be such a party pooper in this case. However, member mikeg is a great lover of all things dodgy, and I'm sure he'd be happy to take that object off your hands. I've just sent him my fake Jhalawar with the Japanese-style cancellations. Forgeries amuse him, apparently. No accounting for tastes, I suppose

jadrake · Post by **jadrake** » 15 Aug 2012 12:25

So I just got my morvi set from world-phil and I am having doubts. From looking at your images ok there are clear differences, but is there any specific things to look at to find the fake/forgeries? I am completely new to Morvi and felt a small collection of 6 was a good way to start. Of course, if they are fakes doesn't help (other than the size for me to make album pages) - I saw you commentary in April on the possible late reprints. If these were real they would be SG16. 17, 17b, 18 and 18b

I wasn't able to find much specifically on fakes - even the Princely States site (which is out of date) didn't list any known - http://www.princelystates.com/CurrentIssue/ff-04-01d.shtml

I guess I'll have to scan them.... guess I jumped too soon on it.

At least the Charkhari looks good (will also post image) assuming it is SG31d

-Jason

jadrake · Post by **jadrake** » 15 Aug 2012 12:59

As promised the scans of Morvi

Maybe I got lucky on the browns?????

The Charkhari - I believe/hope this is the 1p "Bluish Slate" vs "Blue"?