Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
If I may for example, here is a mint $10 George V stamp up for £495 (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HONG-KONG-1912-21-10-Purple-Black-Red-Post-Office-fresh-unmounted-Sg-116-/302264949260?hash=item4660651a0c:g:ypoAAOSwCGVX2o1R) which appears to have part of the crown missing. How can this be so as it is not a recognised error I'm aware of?
On other items (QV to Geo V) I note that often the decorative boxes in the four corners sometimes appear crudely represented, i.e. the lines are poorly reproduced and crooked, thus not matching the finer details of original stamps.
(I couldn't see a special section for this but if there is one please feel free to move the post!)
Login to Like
this post
Not sure if it is an error, my Sg does not mention it but Yang may. Ningpo will probably put us straight on this.
However there is the stamp available at http://www.sandafayre.com/itemdetails.aspx?s=593845&return=true
But this one has a short perf top right. The crown on this looks complete.
Login to Like
this post
Firstly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the stamp you posted. Allowances have to be made for the paper surface on earlier HK stamps. Sometimes the ink does not marry perfectly with the paper.
Printing variances abound in some of the minute detail, such as; the crown; the scallops around the vignette; and the portrait. Sometimes the corner swastika ornaments and the inner frame lines can be found distorted.
Major variances that are of note, are those listed in most catalogues. There are constant flaws on KGV issues, such as: 'broken flower ornament'; 'broken crown'; and 'broken Chinese character'. But you may come across others, such as: 'dot on bridge of nose'; cigarette flaw'; and 'cut on scalp' as found on KGV issues and these are not catalogued.
Forgeries on KGVI, KGV and KEVII are virtually unheard of. The KEVII $10 was attempted which is quite obvious and was perpetrated as a postal forgery.
Queen Victoria varieties have all been documented but not necessarily recorded in catalogues. Again, minor printing flaws occur in corner ornaments and frame lines but these are caused by plate damage. Major flaws (very few) are catalogued.
Forgeries of QV are much more frequently met with. The majority were executed by well known forgers such as Spiro brothers; Panelli, Zechmeyer and Sperati. But all these have been widely documented, as their efforts were not restricted just to Hong Kong. Considerable care has to be taken when buying provisional issues though (overprinted with new values), where the parent stamp is genuine.
I collect all reigns of HK, both mint and used. Of more concern to me is the ever increasing instances of forged (treaty port) postmarks. You may well have seen these on that site which you provided a link to.
The problem with that site is that it does not explain what is wrong with the postmarks. In fact, there is nothing actually wrong with the size or format of the postmarks. It's that they have been reproduced by inkjet (possibly laser) printers on genuine (sometimes cleaned) stamps.
Many have been sold by an eBay seller called Manyik, in Canada. Once these appear on the secondary market, then the problems begin; they are very difficult to distinguish from the genuine. Here are examples that I posted on another forum only a few days ago: HK high value forged postmarks. The seller has since removed the listings. I don't know if these were from the Manyik stable (can't tell if these are inkjet forgeries), and probably will never know. However, the fact that the items shown in that link attracted a number of bids 6 days before they were taken down, shows that many collectors were fooled by them.
In summary, I would not be too paranoid about forged material from the three King's reigns, but would be more careful with Queen Vickie stuff and Treaty Port postmarks.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Below is a cropped image of the high values of the first KGV definitive issue (Wmk CA). This is a reduced size Tiff file image, so has lost some definition. However, it may be clear enough to show how the crown on the $3 values differs. The right hand copy shows how the crown is rather faint at the top. In fact the $10 is slightly indistinct too:
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
01:24:13am
Write!!! Share your knowledge. Make up one page write ups!! I have submitted many of my own. Get the info out there! All of us together, you the HK collector, me the Persia, some one the Canada...write!! Please..thanks
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I remain suspicious of the $10 stamp because a missing jewel on the crown would be a clear and obvious error, yet neither SG or Yang list it. I have never seen another Hong Kong stamp of this era with such a major flaw, so if anyone has an identical example please show it.
Login to Like
this post
02:09:03pm
I would like to request support and expertise over items I have looked at on Ebay in particular. I'm aware of http://stampforgeries.com, and as a collector of Hong Kong I'm feeling discouraged by the number of high value items I see for sale that are suspect.
If I may for example, here is a mint $10 George V stamp up for £495 (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HONG-KONG-1912-21-10-Purple-Black-Red-Post-Office-fresh-unmounted-Sg-116-/302264949260?hash=item4660651a0c:g:ypoAAOSwCGVX2o1R) which appears to have part of the crown missing. How can this be so as it is not a recognised error I'm aware of?
On other items (QV to Geo V) I note that often the decorative boxes in the four corners sometimes appear crudely represented, i.e. the lines are poorly reproduced and crooked, thus not matching the finer details of original stamps.
(I couldn't see a special section for this but if there is one please feel free to move the post!)
Login to Like
this post
re: Forgeries on auction websites
Not sure if it is an error, my Sg does not mention it but Yang may. Ningpo will probably put us straight on this.
However there is the stamp available at http://www.sandafayre.com/itemdetails.aspx?s=593845&return=true
But this one has a short perf top right. The crown on this looks complete.
Login to Like
this post
re: Forgeries on auction websites
Firstly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the stamp you posted. Allowances have to be made for the paper surface on earlier HK stamps. Sometimes the ink does not marry perfectly with the paper.
Printing variances abound in some of the minute detail, such as; the crown; the scallops around the vignette; and the portrait. Sometimes the corner swastika ornaments and the inner frame lines can be found distorted.
Major variances that are of note, are those listed in most catalogues. There are constant flaws on KGV issues, such as: 'broken flower ornament'; 'broken crown'; and 'broken Chinese character'. But you may come across others, such as: 'dot on bridge of nose'; cigarette flaw'; and 'cut on scalp' as found on KGV issues and these are not catalogued.
Forgeries on KGVI, KGV and KEVII are virtually unheard of. The KEVII $10 was attempted which is quite obvious and was perpetrated as a postal forgery.
Queen Victoria varieties have all been documented but not necessarily recorded in catalogues. Again, minor printing flaws occur in corner ornaments and frame lines but these are caused by plate damage. Major flaws (very few) are catalogued.
Forgeries of QV are much more frequently met with. The majority were executed by well known forgers such as Spiro brothers; Panelli, Zechmeyer and Sperati. But all these have been widely documented, as their efforts were not restricted just to Hong Kong. Considerable care has to be taken when buying provisional issues though (overprinted with new values), where the parent stamp is genuine.
I collect all reigns of HK, both mint and used. Of more concern to me is the ever increasing instances of forged (treaty port) postmarks. You may well have seen these on that site which you provided a link to.
The problem with that site is that it does not explain what is wrong with the postmarks. In fact, there is nothing actually wrong with the size or format of the postmarks. It's that they have been reproduced by inkjet (possibly laser) printers on genuine (sometimes cleaned) stamps.
Many have been sold by an eBay seller called Manyik, in Canada. Once these appear on the secondary market, then the problems begin; they are very difficult to distinguish from the genuine. Here are examples that I posted on another forum only a few days ago: HK high value forged postmarks. The seller has since removed the listings. I don't know if these were from the Manyik stable (can't tell if these are inkjet forgeries), and probably will never know. However, the fact that the items shown in that link attracted a number of bids 6 days before they were taken down, shows that many collectors were fooled by them.
In summary, I would not be too paranoid about forged material from the three King's reigns, but would be more careful with Queen Vickie stuff and Treaty Port postmarks.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Forgeries on auction websites
Below is a cropped image of the high values of the first KGV definitive issue (Wmk CA). This is a reduced size Tiff file image, so has lost some definition. However, it may be clear enough to show how the crown on the $3 values differs. The right hand copy shows how the crown is rather faint at the top. In fact the $10 is slightly indistinct too:
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
IPDA past chairman, Sacramento Philatelic Society #2112-past vice president, ISWWSC #2966, Iran philatelic study circle, US Army Veteran, Grandfather of 6, stamp collector/seller!
21 Sep 2017
01:24:13am
re: Forgeries on auction websites
Write!!! Share your knowledge. Make up one page write ups!! I have submitted many of my own. Get the info out there! All of us together, you the HK collector, me the Persia, some one the Canada...write!! Please..thanks
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
03:18:02pm
re: Forgeries on auction websites
I remain suspicious of the $10 stamp because a missing jewel on the crown would be a clear and obvious error, yet neither SG or Yang list it. I have never seen another Hong Kong stamp of this era with such a major flaw, so if anyone has an identical example please show it.
Login to Like
this post