Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
BOB
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Nice work! Time for the next elusive stamp.
I have always liked the look of Hong Kong stamps. A mix of the East and the West. Stylish.
Eric
Login to Like
this post
Very nice Bob. Good find and keep up the good work.
Mike
Login to Like
this post
Nice!Bob! had one but it either got fired or is lost in all my mess somewhere. 
Login to Like
this post
For the benefit of those who aren't in the know, Bob's little 5c fiscal was an emergency issue, due to a shortage of the 5c KGVI definitive.
This was only used for 10 days between 11th and 21st January 1938. According to Webb, copies on cover are rare but I'm not so sure. I have seen numerous covers on eBay and at the odd stamp fair.
Curiously, I have never seen a used copy on piece before.
Although mint copies can be found (I think Bob has a mint copy), multiples are almost never seen. A block of 4 was offered recently on another forum but it had no gum, so I passed on it.
Bob, could I ask what the date is on your copy and are you able to provide a more 'head on' image, as I'd like to check the lettering?
Login to Like
this post
I'm a little confused here. If it is a revenue stamp that was "used" in an emergency situation postally, how would you tell that a mint copy was this and not just the original revenue? I don't see any overprints.
Login to Like
this post
You wouldn't.
The mere fact that the 5c was used postally, obliges if you like, collectors to obtain a mint copy (if they do in fact collect mint) because it was in effect a definitive issue.
This situation also extends to those fiscal stamps from the Victorian period that had dual purpose; of which there were numerous. These too were not overprinted to denote postal usage, although a couple were re-valued and overprinted to correspond with a particular postal rate.
The waters are also muddied by unauthorised usage of fiscal stamps for postal purposes. In these instances it would seem that the Post Office turned a blind eye.
There is a further example of a fiscal stamp which was used postally, which is not even recognised by Stanley Gibbons (and I would imagine all the other mainstream catalogues). It is as rare as hen's teeth and unknown to non-specialist collectors.
Just to preempt the question; how do you know when a fiscal stamp has been used postally?
Queen Victoria Hong Kong fiscally used stamps were struck with a CDS containing the words 'PAID-ALL' around the base, unlike this example which was used postally (and happens to have a registered CDS):
This example is of an unauthorised use of a 3 cent fiscal stamp, postally cancelled with the 'B62 killer' of Hong Kong:
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This is definition question. Is a fiscal mint copy a valid postage stamp collectible?
I myself collect worldwide used and love a good cancel. My position is that a mint fiscal adhesive is not a postal/philatelic collectible unless validly issued/designated as such, as indicated in the above thread on UK early issues.
The postal cancel may not make it a true postage stamp but the usage is surely a collectible item in the same way a Cinderella similarly passed through the mail may be collectible.
Login to Like
this post
Ningpo, when I read your response, my heart went down in my throat. To answer your question, I cannot tell the date, even under magnification.
Please explain your position further--why do you basically think this is a bogus cancel?
To me, as far as value is concerned, it makes no sense as a used copy is worth considerably less than mint, let alone MNH.
BOB
Login to Like
this post
rjan,
You have asked a rather contentious question. I'm sure some collectors would dismiss a mint fiscal stamp outright, if it was not marked in some way as being for postal use; with say an overprint to say something like 'postage revenue'.
They would more likely collect used examples that can without doubt show genuine postal usage.
But this is all academic because the catalogues recognise these dual usage issues in both mint and used condition. The SG listed prices of these in mint condition start at £100 (coincidentally Bob's 1938 5 cent) up to a quite staggering £12,000 (excluding errors).
As for a fiscal stamp passing through the postal system undetected and receiving a postal marking; is in my opinion quite collectible. It is in some way a historical indication of the workings of the postal system of the time. These, as you suggest, could be categorised similar to a cinderella; at the moment. Information may emerge in the future that may show that these were valid after all (Hong Kong postal records are not complete).
Login to Like
this post
BOB,
I was hoping you would be able to allay my worry by posting a clearer image. However, as you've asked me directly, you should be wary of forged postmarks on this issue.
There were only 10 days of usage, starting on the 11th January but the authority to use this stamp was not published until a few days after that date. Consequently, there was bound to be some unscrupulous person trying to cash in on the scarcity of a postal date of the 11th on cover. These were produced about one year later.
You may be able to establish authenticity by a couple of checks:
If the date is not the 11th, read no further: you have a genuine copy. If you can't read any of the date then you'll have to ignore those parts of the check.
If it has the date 11/JA/38 and cancelled in Victoria at 9am in a double lined CDS with Hong Kong at the bottom, you have to check :
If the V is very close to the top of the left side-bar (1mm instead of 2mm) and top of the R bulges.
The 9 has a longer tail than the normal (you might have trouble with this one), the M inclines to the right instead of being upright and the top of the J of JA is longer.
The 3 of 38 is very short and the bottom circle of the 8 bulges outwards.
And the shortest distance between the side-bars at the top is 14.5mm instead of 16mm.
There is another type of forgery which is easier to check for:
If it has Victoria in a double lined CDS with Hong Kong at the bottom but with no side-bars.
Login to Like
this post
Bob,
Using my squinting eyes, I've looked back at the image you have posted. I can't be 100% certain but your copy actually looks ok.
The V of Victoria seems to be spaced correctly from the left side-bar and I can't see an obvious bulge in the character R.
Just check the spacing that I mentioned (visually this looks normal to me) and that should confirm one way or the other.
I do hope this turns out well.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I have posted this somewhere else on this site, however... I could not resist the temptation as this is directly relevant, the maximum expression of a postally used hk fiscal ..... The fabled S.G. F6
I bid and lost this stamp to the famous Philippe Orsetti nearly 10 years ago....
I was persistent and nearly 10 years later...it is mine...
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I have mentioned a couple of times concerning my elusive search for a Hong Kong Scott 167 (a revenue stamp used postally). I was looking for one in MNH condition, but I realized that was going to set me back a bit. So, when I was at the April show in Orlando, I found a used copy "on piece" showing that it was used postally. Now that's something to keep in my Hong Kong collection! BOB
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
Nice work! Time for the next elusive stamp.
I have always liked the look of Hong Kong stamps. A mix of the East and the West. Stylish.
Eric
Login to Like
this post
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
Very nice Bob. Good find and keep up the good work.
Mike
Login to Like
this post
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
For the benefit of those who aren't in the know, Bob's little 5c fiscal was an emergency issue, due to a shortage of the 5c KGVI definitive.
This was only used for 10 days between 11th and 21st January 1938. According to Webb, copies on cover are rare but I'm not so sure. I have seen numerous covers on eBay and at the odd stamp fair.
Curiously, I have never seen a used copy on piece before.
Although mint copies can be found (I think Bob has a mint copy), multiples are almost never seen. A block of 4 was offered recently on another forum but it had no gum, so I passed on it.
Bob, could I ask what the date is on your copy and are you able to provide a more 'head on' image, as I'd like to check the lettering?
Login to Like
this post
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
I'm a little confused here. If it is a revenue stamp that was "used" in an emergency situation postally, how would you tell that a mint copy was this and not just the original revenue? I don't see any overprints.
Login to Like
this post
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
You wouldn't.
The mere fact that the 5c was used postally, obliges if you like, collectors to obtain a mint copy (if they do in fact collect mint) because it was in effect a definitive issue.
This situation also extends to those fiscal stamps from the Victorian period that had dual purpose; of which there were numerous. These too were not overprinted to denote postal usage, although a couple were re-valued and overprinted to correspond with a particular postal rate.
The waters are also muddied by unauthorised usage of fiscal stamps for postal purposes. In these instances it would seem that the Post Office turned a blind eye.
There is a further example of a fiscal stamp which was used postally, which is not even recognised by Stanley Gibbons (and I would imagine all the other mainstream catalogues). It is as rare as hen's teeth and unknown to non-specialist collectors.
Just to preempt the question; how do you know when a fiscal stamp has been used postally?
Queen Victoria Hong Kong fiscally used stamps were struck with a CDS containing the words 'PAID-ALL' around the base, unlike this example which was used postally (and happens to have a registered CDS):
This example is of an unauthorised use of a 3 cent fiscal stamp, postally cancelled with the 'B62 killer' of Hong Kong:
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
This is definition question. Is a fiscal mint copy a valid postage stamp collectible?
I myself collect worldwide used and love a good cancel. My position is that a mint fiscal adhesive is not a postal/philatelic collectible unless validly issued/designated as such, as indicated in the above thread on UK early issues.
The postal cancel may not make it a true postage stamp but the usage is surely a collectible item in the same way a Cinderella similarly passed through the mail may be collectible.
Login to Like
this post
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
Ningpo, when I read your response, my heart went down in my throat. To answer your question, I cannot tell the date, even under magnification.
Please explain your position further--why do you basically think this is a bogus cancel?
To me, as far as value is concerned, it makes no sense as a used copy is worth considerably less than mint, let alone MNH.
BOB
Login to Like
this post
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
rjan,
You have asked a rather contentious question. I'm sure some collectors would dismiss a mint fiscal stamp outright, if it was not marked in some way as being for postal use; with say an overprint to say something like 'postage revenue'.
They would more likely collect used examples that can without doubt show genuine postal usage.
But this is all academic because the catalogues recognise these dual usage issues in both mint and used condition. The SG listed prices of these in mint condition start at £100 (coincidentally Bob's 1938 5 cent) up to a quite staggering £12,000 (excluding errors).
As for a fiscal stamp passing through the postal system undetected and receiving a postal marking; is in my opinion quite collectible. It is in some way a historical indication of the workings of the postal system of the time. These, as you suggest, could be categorised similar to a cinderella; at the moment. Information may emerge in the future that may show that these were valid after all (Hong Kong postal records are not complete).
Login to Like
this post
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
BOB,
I was hoping you would be able to allay my worry by posting a clearer image. However, as you've asked me directly, you should be wary of forged postmarks on this issue.
There were only 10 days of usage, starting on the 11th January but the authority to use this stamp was not published until a few days after that date. Consequently, there was bound to be some unscrupulous person trying to cash in on the scarcity of a postal date of the 11th on cover. These were produced about one year later.
You may be able to establish authenticity by a couple of checks:
If the date is not the 11th, read no further: you have a genuine copy. If you can't read any of the date then you'll have to ignore those parts of the check.
If it has the date 11/JA/38 and cancelled in Victoria at 9am in a double lined CDS with Hong Kong at the bottom, you have to check :
If the V is very close to the top of the left side-bar (1mm instead of 2mm) and top of the R bulges.
The 9 has a longer tail than the normal (you might have trouble with this one), the M inclines to the right instead of being upright and the top of the J of JA is longer.
The 3 of 38 is very short and the bottom circle of the 8 bulges outwards.
And the shortest distance between the side-bars at the top is 14.5mm instead of 16mm.
There is another type of forgery which is easier to check for:
If it has Victoria in a double lined CDS with Hong Kong at the bottom but with no side-bars.
Login to Like
this post
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
Bob,
Using my squinting eyes, I've looked back at the image you have posted. I can't be 100% certain but your copy actually looks ok.
The V of Victoria seems to be spaced correctly from the left side-bar and I can't see an obvious bulge in the character R.
Just check the spacing that I mentioned (visually this looks normal to me) and that should confirm one way or the other.
I do hope this turns out well.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: I finally have my Hong Kong 167
I have posted this somewhere else on this site, however... I could not resist the temptation as this is directly relevant, the maximum expression of a postally used hk fiscal ..... The fabled S.G. F6
I bid and lost this stamp to the famous Philippe Orsetti nearly 10 years ago....
I was persistent and nearly 10 years later...it is mine...
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.