Re plate number imprint on SG S1 = Sc E1:
Frank_King wrote: ↑18 Aug 2022 14:28
I didn't find anything about those characters.
Thanks for checking Jan = Frank_King
Re overprint, surcharge and revaluation:
Ubobo.R.O. wrote: ↑18 Aug 2022 18:44
Two questions for Mister E.
Wouldn't a surcharge be +10 ?
Isn't this a revaluation ?
Good comment/observation, thanks Puffin = Ubobo.R.O.
I normally try to use the terms as follows:
— a printed text or image added to a stamp after the stamp was printed, but not including a face value
— a printed face value added to a stamp after the stamp was printed.
Both these terms are familiar from usage in Stanley Gibbons
[SG} catalogues. Where printed text or image and
a face value are added after the stamp was printed, SG refers to this as a surcharge
, whereas I prefer to call it an overprint and surcharge
I think revaluation
is not normally used in SG catalogues. That said, I think it is a more precise term than "surcharge", and therefore more informative. Within the range of instances of "surcharge" used in SG catalogues, a large subset could be more informatively termed "revaluation".
on Special Delivery
O.H.M.S. = On His Majesty's Service
SG says: "No. S15 overprinted
as Type O3 [O.H.M.S.] but larger" (my bold)
= 10¢ on Special Delivery
SG says: "Surcharged
with Type S.7 [10 with three bars, left and right]"
suggests, this is a revaluation
, as the resulting stamp paid 10¢ Special delivery, not
Overprint and surcharge
on 1932 airmail stamp
SG says: "Air. No. 310 surcharged
Once again, the "6(¢)" is a revaluation
, so the resulting stamp paid 6¢ airmail, not
The text about the conference makes this an overprint.
changing intended service, with implicit added tax of 1¢
SG says: "These stamps were intended for tax purposes, but owing to ambiguity
in an official circular dated 16 April 1915, it was for a time believed that their use
for postal purposes was authorised. The position was clarified by a further circular
on 20 May 1916 which made clear that Nos. 225/7 were for fiscal use only."
That comment is silent on the implicit 1¢ tax added to the face value of these stamps,
to help offset war costs. Thus the overprint "WAR TAX" was an implicit surcharge
In contrast to SG, Arpin Philately
(for example) says:
"Canada War Tax Stamps were issued between April 15 1915 and December 1916.
A War Tax stamp is an added tax in addition to regular postage; it is very similar
to a semi-postal stamp, but whose use is mandatory rather than optional for some
period of time. The added revenue was used to defray the costs of war."
clarifying the face value
The British 3d and 6d lilac QV definitives of 1883 were very pale, and the face value
was difficult to read, so they were issued with a large font surcharge in carmine
clarifying/reiterating the face value.
This is a surcharge
that is not
It seems that surcharge
= "charge on/over" (literally), using French sur
. Compare overprint
= "print on/over".
But the question for surcharge
is: "on what?"
• If it's "onto the face value", then it's an added impost, as Puffin
• If it's "onto the design of the stamp" (apparently SG usage), it parallels "revaluation".
Sometimes a surcharge appears with a + sign, making clear that it's an addition to the underlying face value:
Do these comments prompt readers to make a
of the terms?