What we collect!

 

Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps
Stamporama Discussion Board Logo
For People Who Love To Talk About Stamps



What we collect!
30 visitors online
What we collect!
30 visitors online


Europe/Other : Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

 

Author
Postings
keesindy
Members Picture


17 Oct 2017
01:57:25pm
Something doesn't make sense to me. While trying to sort out papers, perfs, reprints, etc., I encountered a problem.

I have two unused enamel surfaced Scott A21 type stamps perf 11½. Both have the small red AÇORES overprint. I initially thought both were black, and this belief was reinforced by red overprints along with the manner in which Scott lists the A21 stamps under Portugal.

I have few resources to help me sort this out. So I may be overlooking something that's obvious or has already been explained elsewhere. Here is what I have.

Image Not Found

The Scott Portugal listings for the A21 type on enamel surfaced paper include the following.

58a perf 12½ black 1884
58d perf 12½ gray 1883
58b perf 13½ black 1884
58e perf 13½ gray 1883
58 perf 11½ black 1884
58f perf 11½ gray 1883

The Scott Azores listings for the A21 type on enamel surfaced paper include the following.

44 perf 12½ slate
44b perf 13½ slate
44d perf 11½ slate
58a perf 11½ slate (R) ((58 is A21 type slate on ordinary paper perf 12½ with red overprint))
_______________________________________

For comparison, look at the A22 10r green listings on enamel surfaced paper.

The Portugal listings.

59a perf 12½ (1884)
59b perf 13½ (1884)
59 perf 11½ (1884)

The Azores listings.

46 perf 12½ (1884)
46b perf 13½ (1884)
46c perf 11½ (1884)
_______________________________________

Questions quickly come to mind.

1. If the editors were able to find and include the issue date for the Azores A22 10r, why not the A21 5r?

Were the editors uncertain? Was there some confusion relating to the black vs gray Portugal A21 stamps that they didn't have time to resolve before a deadline? There was no confusion with the A22 10r green listings that all show the 1884 date. The A21 listings under Portugal all show 1884 for the issue date for the black varieties and 1883 for the gray varieties.

2. Why are the Portugal A21 type stamps listed as gray and the Azores stamps listed as slate? Shouldn't they be the same?

3. Is the absence of Azores listings for the A21 type black (edit: on enamel surfaced paper) an oversight?

My two A21 type stamps appear to be black (although one is lighter) and both clearly have the red overprint. Since I also have two copies of the Azores A21 that are gray (slate?) with small black overprints, I am guessing the Azores slate entries showing black overprints are what I have, but what about the Azores 58 and 58a slate listings with a red overprint? Are these listings correct or should they be the black listings? I ask because all Azores 1882-87 entries for the black A16 5r and black A15 1000r indicate a red overprint. Wouldn't it make sense to expect only the black A21 stamps to have red overprints unless there was an error and some gray (slate?) stamps received the red overprint? All A21 Azores slate listings indicate a black overprint except Azores 58 and 58a which indicate red overprints. These two entries aren't identified as printing errors. Are they be listing errors that should be showing the black rather than slate color? (edit to add: MY 1987 Scott shows both red and black overprints on the A21 5r slate stamps.)

The 1983 Barefoot booklet, "Forgery & Reprint Guide 12, Portuguese Colonies," doesn't answer the question. It shows two 1882-87 Azores 5r listings, but only differentiates by overprint color (black or red), not by stamp design color. I don't know if this was an oversight or there is another explanation. According to Barefoot, the 5r type with black overprint was produced on chalky paper with all three perf variations. The 5r type with red overprint was produced on chalky paper with 11½ and 13½ perfs.

According to Barefoot, the only Azores 5r type printed on ordinary paper was the 11½ perf with black overprint. In contrast, Scott's only 5r A21 type Azores listing on ordinary paper (#58) is a slate perf 12½ with red overprint. Are both correct? Scott's only A21 Portugal listing on ordinary paper is black perf 11½ 1884. Shouldn't each Azores listing match a Portugal listing? Am I overlooking something or is this a Scott listing error?

Getting light-headed trying to keep track of all the variables!

Tom
Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
michael78651
Members Picture


Moderator, MT Member

17 Oct 2017
04:43:53pm
re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Tom, I'll bet you that there's a typo in the Azores listing.

I think Scott #58 should be a 500 Reis face value. The 5 Reis face value stamp is Scott #43, and is listed a being black with a red overprint. Look at Scott #59. It has a face value of 500 reis.

Like
Login to Like
this post

"Author: Seasons of Fantasies and Dreams, The Whitechapel Fog"

www.hipstamp.com/store/the-online-stamp-shop
keesindy
Members Picture


17 Oct 2017
08:05:28pm
re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Michael, after reading your comments and looking into this, I thought the problem might be more complex than just a typo. Eventually, I looked at my old 1987 Scott catalog. It shows this for Azores.

1882-85 (black or red overprint)
43 A16 5r black (R)
44 A21 5r slate
.................

Red Overprint
58 A21 5r slate
59 A24a 500r black
60 A15 1000r black

Then, I scratched my initial response and started over.

The 1987 catalog suggests the 5r slate stamps may have either black or red overprints. If so and if the 2016 listings are correct after all, then 5r slate stamps on ordinary paper must have a red overprint while 5r slate stamps on enamel surfaced paper must have the black overprint.

So #58 A21 5r today is consistent with the old Scott listing.

However, #58 is on ordinary paper and Barefoot shows no 5r of any color with red overprint on ordinary paper. Also, the Portugal listings show only a single A21 5r listing on ordinary paper and it is black perf 11½. Where did they find Portuguese A21 style 5r slate perf 12½ stamps to overprint for Azores?

Then, your comments led me to Azores #59 500r black in the enamel surfaced paper listings. #59 is design type A24a (Portugal 62 500r black (1884), but the only A24a 500r black listings in Portugal are on ordinary paper. There are no 500r listings at all on enamel surfaced paper in the 1882-87 listings. how does Scott derive an Azores 500r black listing on enamel surfaced paper from the Portugal listings that show the 500r black existing only on ordinary (plain) paper?

But, wait! J. Barefoot (1983) says the Azores 500r black stamp was produced only on chalky paper (perf 12½) and not on ordinary paper. This agrees with the Azores #59 listing (assuming Barefoot's "chalky" is the same as Scott's "enamel surfaced"), but where is the Portugal listing for this overprinted stamp? Am I wrong in thinking there should be a Portugal stamp listing for each of the Azores 1882-87 overprinted listings?

Where does the slate color listing in Azores come from? The A21 listings in Portugal are either black (1884) or gray (1883). No slate listings.

Surely, someone has encountered all of these seeming inconsistencies since Scott expanded and rearranged the Azores listings. When I started this reply, I thought I had an answer to one of my initial questions, but all I have are more questions!!!!!!!!Crying!

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
michael78651
Members Picture


Moderator, MT Member

17 Oct 2017
09:07:36pm
re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

But Scott only renumbered the Ceres issues.

Like
Login to Like
this post

"Author: Seasons of Fantasies and Dreams, The Whitechapel Fog"

www.hipstamp.com/store/the-online-stamp-shop
keesindy
Members Picture


17 Oct 2017
11:14:23pm
re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

I thought they had also done some major work on earlier Portugal and colonies issues in recent years. So any problems with 1880s listings that exist today have been around for a while...........That's disheartening.

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
keesindy
Members Picture


21 Oct 2017
11:50:34pm
re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Still hoping someone can shed some more light on this......

I'm taking another look at my effort to identify my 1884 Azores 5r black, small red overprint on chalky/enamel surfaced paper with yellow gum.

Scott lists the 5r black perf 11½ in Portugal with both ordinary (58c) and enamel surfaced paper (#58). As Michael pointed out, Scott lists the overprinted Azores stamp on ordinary paper (#43). However, the stamp with the Azores overprint on enamel surfaced paper is not listed.

J. Barefoot says the 1885 Azores reprints were on "stout, very white paper (unless tropicalized)," perf 13½, 12½ or imperf with no gum or white gum. The 1905 reprints were on "creamy, ordinary" paper. Scott has nearly identical comments for these reprints, especially with respect to the paper, under the Portugal listings.

J. Barefoot and Scott both say there were additional reprints of a few 1882-87 stamps. Barefoot says the reprint year was 1900 and Scott says 1893. Neither describes these reprints in detail as far as I can tell. J. Barefoot says the Azores 5r with red overprint was reprinted in 1900 with perf 11½. Unfortunately, Barefoot doesn't distinguish between the black 5r and slate 5r, the latter apparently having either black or red overprint. It's possible his 1900 perf 11½ overprint entry applies to both stamp colors. Even if that's the case, I still don't know any other details about the characteristics of these 1900/1893 overprints.

The only characteristic of either the 1885 or the 1905 reprints that my two stamps match is the "very white paper" of the 1885 reprints. Mine are chalky/enamel surfaced with the wrong perfs and wrong gum.

Since my two stamps appear to be overprints of Portugal 58, I can see few possibilities.

1. I have two copies of an Azores variety Scott has failed to list for decades.

2. I have reprints of an Azores stamp Scott doesn't list.

3. I have copies of Portugal 58 or reprints thereof with forged overprints that neither J. Barefoot nor Scott mention.

4. Other possibilities?


Tom

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
scb
Members Picture


Collecting the world 1840 to date - one stamp at a time!

22 Oct 2017
12:24:11pm
re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Here's what Portuguese Afinsa lists on these (sorry for possible typing errors, typing Portuguese is not my strongest asset):

---
Papel porcelana, Denteado. 11½,
#48 Cinzento, cinz claro
Sob. a preto
Sob. a vermelho

Papel porcelana, Denteado. 12½,
#48 Cinzento, cinz claro
Sob. a preto
Sob. a vermelho

Papel porcelana, Denteado. 13½,
#48 Cinzento, cinz claro
Sob. a preto
Sob. a vermelho


Reimpressoes

5r. Cinzento. Sob a preto, Papel porcelana 1885, 1905

1885 O papel, um dos elementos mais tipicos destas reimpressoes, e muito branco, espesso, e de texture compacta e uniforme. Geralmente sem goma. Alguns exempleares foram gomados apos a impressao, acumulando-se cola nos cavados.

Por terem as mesmas caracteristicas em termos de papel e de cores, cosumam inclui-se neste grupo de reimpressoes , tambem ditas do "Congresso Postal", um conjunto de selos aparecidos no mercado de 1890 a 1893. Foram produzidos clandestinamente na "Casa da Moeda" e, muitos deles, sobrecarregados com tracos "PROVA", "SPECIMEN", etc.

1905 O papel e baço, ligeraimente amarelado, de espessura media e la texture irregular. As cores, muito caracteristicas desta reimpressao, tem pouco brilho, sendo em geral mortiças. A goma e fina e levemente amarelada. Os exemplares dendeados sao de pontas finas e agucadas.
---

Which Google Translate puts into:

Porcelain paper, Perforated. 11½,
# 48 Gray, light gray
Under. black
Under. red

Porcelain paper, Perforated. 12½,
# 48 Gray, light gray
Under. black
Under. red

Porcelain paper, Perforated. 13½,
# 48 Gray, light gray
Under. black
Under. red


Reprints 5r. Gray. Under black, Porcelain paper 1885, 1905

1885 Paper, one of the most typical elements of these reprints, is very white, thick, and of compact and uniform texture. Usually without gum. Some examples were gummed after printing, accumulating glue in the troughs.

Because they have the same characteristics in terms of paper and color, a set of stamps appeared on the market from 1890 to 1893 are also included in this group of reprints, also called "Postal Congress". They were produced clandestinely in the "Casa da Moeda "and, many of them, overprinted with " PROVA "," SPECIMEN ", etc.

1905 The paper and spleen, slightly yellowish, of medium thickness and irregular texture. The colors, very characteristic of this reprint, have little brightness, and are usually mortiças. The gum is thin and slightly yellowish. The specimens are thin and thin.


Hope this is of some help.

-k-

Like
Login to Like
this post

https://www.stampcollectingblog.com
keesindy
Members Picture


22 Oct 2017
04:54:13pm
re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Thank you, "k," for that information. The translation tools available today are much improved and this was easy to follow. Your information reminded me that I had read descriptions of the porcelana paper in an older Portu-Info journal. In trying to find the paper descriptions, I stumbled upon a detailed article from 2000 about the issuance of this set of stamps.

I need to study that article and will post more information later. Stay tuned!

Tom


Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
keesindy
Members Picture


22 Oct 2017
10:11:14pm
re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

OK. Here is what I learned from the ISPP journal article.

I happened to belong to the International Society of Portuguese Philately for a few years many years ago and had looked for information on the Azores overprints in the Portu-Info journal issues and back issues I still have. However, I had overlooked the Robert Huggins article in the January-March 2000 issue. The article is titled “PORTUGAL: Notes on the Luis De Frente Issue Designed by Mouchon.” It answers some of the questions that Scott and Barefoot didn’t answer.

The article presents a history of the set beginning in 1882 when the 25r was first printed, but focuses on the 5r. Mr. Huggins explains that the initial 5r printing in 1883 and a subsequent printing were the gray and pale gray colors.

He presents the chronology of the 5r printing in a table. In 1887, a grayish black perf 11½ was printed on unsurfaced paper. The fully black version of the 5r wasn’t printed until 1888 and was on chalky paper with perfs 11½, 12½ and 13½. Mr. Huggins says this printing was done on both porcelana and porcelana ordinario papers.

The table lists 1885 and 1905 5r reprints, but all are perf 13½ and on unsurfaced paper. The 1885 reprints were gray and brownish gray colors. The 1905 reprints were pale yellowish gray and grayish black.

According to Mr. Huggins, there were two dies for printing the 5r. Die I included the barely legible name MOUCHON below the king’s tie. The name was entirely or mostly missing in Die II. Black 5r stamps are Die I.

Mr. Huggins also addresses the catalog listings for the 5r. Scott (1999 edition) and Minkus (1982-83 edition) were the worst. He believes the Simoes Ferreira (1981) catalog did the best job overall of cataloging the 5r.
______________________________

The 2016 Scott Classic Specialized Catalogue includes in the Portugal listings all three perf varieties for both the gray and the black 5r on chalky (enamel surfaced) paper. For the Azores overprint listings, Scott lists only the three gray varieties (but changed the color name to slate). Given Scott’s history, it’s easy to assume an error of omission that has persisted for a very long time. If we go by J. Barefoot, there should be Azores 5r red overprints on perfs 11½ and 13½, but Barefoot doesn’t clearly state if these would be the gray (slate) or black stamps or both.

It now seems clear my stamps are not reprints and are unlisted by Scott. Given that the 2000 article by Huggins mostly corroborates and helps clarify what J. Barefoot had published in 1983, I suppose I should contact Scott.

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
        

 

Author/Postings
Members Picture
keesindy

17 Oct 2017
01:57:25pm

Something doesn't make sense to me. While trying to sort out papers, perfs, reprints, etc., I encountered a problem.

I have two unused enamel surfaced Scott A21 type stamps perf 11½. Both have the small red AÇORES overprint. I initially thought both were black, and this belief was reinforced by red overprints along with the manner in which Scott lists the A21 stamps under Portugal.

I have few resources to help me sort this out. So I may be overlooking something that's obvious or has already been explained elsewhere. Here is what I have.

Image Not Found

The Scott Portugal listings for the A21 type on enamel surfaced paper include the following.

58a perf 12½ black 1884
58d perf 12½ gray 1883
58b perf 13½ black 1884
58e perf 13½ gray 1883
58 perf 11½ black 1884
58f perf 11½ gray 1883

The Scott Azores listings for the A21 type on enamel surfaced paper include the following.

44 perf 12½ slate
44b perf 13½ slate
44d perf 11½ slate
58a perf 11½ slate (R) ((58 is A21 type slate on ordinary paper perf 12½ with red overprint))
_______________________________________

For comparison, look at the A22 10r green listings on enamel surfaced paper.

The Portugal listings.

59a perf 12½ (1884)
59b perf 13½ (1884)
59 perf 11½ (1884)

The Azores listings.

46 perf 12½ (1884)
46b perf 13½ (1884)
46c perf 11½ (1884)
_______________________________________

Questions quickly come to mind.

1. If the editors were able to find and include the issue date for the Azores A22 10r, why not the A21 5r?

Were the editors uncertain? Was there some confusion relating to the black vs gray Portugal A21 stamps that they didn't have time to resolve before a deadline? There was no confusion with the A22 10r green listings that all show the 1884 date. The A21 listings under Portugal all show 1884 for the issue date for the black varieties and 1883 for the gray varieties.

2. Why are the Portugal A21 type stamps listed as gray and the Azores stamps listed as slate? Shouldn't they be the same?

3. Is the absence of Azores listings for the A21 type black (edit: on enamel surfaced paper) an oversight?

My two A21 type stamps appear to be black (although one is lighter) and both clearly have the red overprint. Since I also have two copies of the Azores A21 that are gray (slate?) with small black overprints, I am guessing the Azores slate entries showing black overprints are what I have, but what about the Azores 58 and 58a slate listings with a red overprint? Are these listings correct or should they be the black listings? I ask because all Azores 1882-87 entries for the black A16 5r and black A15 1000r indicate a red overprint. Wouldn't it make sense to expect only the black A21 stamps to have red overprints unless there was an error and some gray (slate?) stamps received the red overprint? All A21 Azores slate listings indicate a black overprint except Azores 58 and 58a which indicate red overprints. These two entries aren't identified as printing errors. Are they be listing errors that should be showing the black rather than slate color? (edit to add: MY 1987 Scott shows both red and black overprints on the A21 5r slate stamps.)

The 1983 Barefoot booklet, "Forgery & Reprint Guide 12, Portuguese Colonies," doesn't answer the question. It shows two 1882-87 Azores 5r listings, but only differentiates by overprint color (black or red), not by stamp design color. I don't know if this was an oversight or there is another explanation. According to Barefoot, the 5r type with black overprint was produced on chalky paper with all three perf variations. The 5r type with red overprint was produced on chalky paper with 11½ and 13½ perfs.

According to Barefoot, the only Azores 5r type printed on ordinary paper was the 11½ perf with black overprint. In contrast, Scott's only 5r A21 type Azores listing on ordinary paper (#58) is a slate perf 12½ with red overprint. Are both correct? Scott's only A21 Portugal listing on ordinary paper is black perf 11½ 1884. Shouldn't each Azores listing match a Portugal listing? Am I overlooking something or is this a Scott listing error?

Getting light-headed trying to keep track of all the variables!

Tom

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
Members Picture
michael78651

Moderator, MT Member
17 Oct 2017
04:43:53pm

re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Tom, I'll bet you that there's a typo in the Azores listing.

I think Scott #58 should be a 500 Reis face value. The 5 Reis face value stamp is Scott #43, and is listed a being black with a red overprint. Look at Scott #59. It has a face value of 500 reis.

Like
Login to Like
this post

"Author: Seasons of Fantasies and Dreams, The Whitechapel Fog"

www.hipstamp.com/sto ...
Members Picture
keesindy

17 Oct 2017
08:05:28pm

re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Michael, after reading your comments and looking into this, I thought the problem might be more complex than just a typo. Eventually, I looked at my old 1987 Scott catalog. It shows this for Azores.

1882-85 (black or red overprint)
43 A16 5r black (R)
44 A21 5r slate
.................

Red Overprint
58 A21 5r slate
59 A24a 500r black
60 A15 1000r black

Then, I scratched my initial response and started over.

The 1987 catalog suggests the 5r slate stamps may have either black or red overprints. If so and if the 2016 listings are correct after all, then 5r slate stamps on ordinary paper must have a red overprint while 5r slate stamps on enamel surfaced paper must have the black overprint.

So #58 A21 5r today is consistent with the old Scott listing.

However, #58 is on ordinary paper and Barefoot shows no 5r of any color with red overprint on ordinary paper. Also, the Portugal listings show only a single A21 5r listing on ordinary paper and it is black perf 11½. Where did they find Portuguese A21 style 5r slate perf 12½ stamps to overprint for Azores?

Then, your comments led me to Azores #59 500r black in the enamel surfaced paper listings. #59 is design type A24a (Portugal 62 500r black (1884), but the only A24a 500r black listings in Portugal are on ordinary paper. There are no 500r listings at all on enamel surfaced paper in the 1882-87 listings. how does Scott derive an Azores 500r black listing on enamel surfaced paper from the Portugal listings that show the 500r black existing only on ordinary (plain) paper?

But, wait! J. Barefoot (1983) says the Azores 500r black stamp was produced only on chalky paper (perf 12½) and not on ordinary paper. This agrees with the Azores #59 listing (assuming Barefoot's "chalky" is the same as Scott's "enamel surfaced"), but where is the Portugal listing for this overprinted stamp? Am I wrong in thinking there should be a Portugal stamp listing for each of the Azores 1882-87 overprinted listings?

Where does the slate color listing in Azores come from? The A21 listings in Portugal are either black (1884) or gray (1883). No slate listings.

Surely, someone has encountered all of these seeming inconsistencies since Scott expanded and rearranged the Azores listings. When I started this reply, I thought I had an answer to one of my initial questions, but all I have are more questions!!!!!!!!Crying!

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
Members Picture
michael78651

Moderator, MT Member
17 Oct 2017
09:07:36pm

re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

But Scott only renumbered the Ceres issues.

Like
Login to Like
this post

"Author: Seasons of Fantasies and Dreams, The Whitechapel Fog"

www.hipstamp.com/sto ...
Members Picture
keesindy

17 Oct 2017
11:14:23pm

re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

I thought they had also done some major work on earlier Portugal and colonies issues in recent years. So any problems with 1880s listings that exist today have been around for a while...........That's disheartening.

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
Members Picture
keesindy

21 Oct 2017
11:50:34pm

re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Still hoping someone can shed some more light on this......

I'm taking another look at my effort to identify my 1884 Azores 5r black, small red overprint on chalky/enamel surfaced paper with yellow gum.

Scott lists the 5r black perf 11½ in Portugal with both ordinary (58c) and enamel surfaced paper (#58). As Michael pointed out, Scott lists the overprinted Azores stamp on ordinary paper (#43). However, the stamp with the Azores overprint on enamel surfaced paper is not listed.

J. Barefoot says the 1885 Azores reprints were on "stout, very white paper (unless tropicalized)," perf 13½, 12½ or imperf with no gum or white gum. The 1905 reprints were on "creamy, ordinary" paper. Scott has nearly identical comments for these reprints, especially with respect to the paper, under the Portugal listings.

J. Barefoot and Scott both say there were additional reprints of a few 1882-87 stamps. Barefoot says the reprint year was 1900 and Scott says 1893. Neither describes these reprints in detail as far as I can tell. J. Barefoot says the Azores 5r with red overprint was reprinted in 1900 with perf 11½. Unfortunately, Barefoot doesn't distinguish between the black 5r and slate 5r, the latter apparently having either black or red overprint. It's possible his 1900 perf 11½ overprint entry applies to both stamp colors. Even if that's the case, I still don't know any other details about the characteristics of these 1900/1893 overprints.

The only characteristic of either the 1885 or the 1905 reprints that my two stamps match is the "very white paper" of the 1885 reprints. Mine are chalky/enamel surfaced with the wrong perfs and wrong gum.

Since my two stamps appear to be overprints of Portugal 58, I can see few possibilities.

1. I have two copies of an Azores variety Scott has failed to list for decades.

2. I have reprints of an Azores stamp Scott doesn't list.

3. I have copies of Portugal 58 or reprints thereof with forged overprints that neither J. Barefoot nor Scott mention.

4. Other possibilities?


Tom

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
Members Picture
scb

Collecting the world 1840 to date - one stamp at a time!
22 Oct 2017
12:24:11pm

re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Here's what Portuguese Afinsa lists on these (sorry for possible typing errors, typing Portuguese is not my strongest asset):

---
Papel porcelana, Denteado. 11½,
#48 Cinzento, cinz claro
Sob. a preto
Sob. a vermelho

Papel porcelana, Denteado. 12½,
#48 Cinzento, cinz claro
Sob. a preto
Sob. a vermelho

Papel porcelana, Denteado. 13½,
#48 Cinzento, cinz claro
Sob. a preto
Sob. a vermelho


Reimpressoes

5r. Cinzento. Sob a preto, Papel porcelana 1885, 1905

1885 O papel, um dos elementos mais tipicos destas reimpressoes, e muito branco, espesso, e de texture compacta e uniforme. Geralmente sem goma. Alguns exempleares foram gomados apos a impressao, acumulando-se cola nos cavados.

Por terem as mesmas caracteristicas em termos de papel e de cores, cosumam inclui-se neste grupo de reimpressoes , tambem ditas do "Congresso Postal", um conjunto de selos aparecidos no mercado de 1890 a 1893. Foram produzidos clandestinamente na "Casa da Moeda" e, muitos deles, sobrecarregados com tracos "PROVA", "SPECIMEN", etc.

1905 O papel e baço, ligeraimente amarelado, de espessura media e la texture irregular. As cores, muito caracteristicas desta reimpressao, tem pouco brilho, sendo em geral mortiças. A goma e fina e levemente amarelada. Os exemplares dendeados sao de pontas finas e agucadas.
---

Which Google Translate puts into:

Porcelain paper, Perforated. 11½,
# 48 Gray, light gray
Under. black
Under. red

Porcelain paper, Perforated. 12½,
# 48 Gray, light gray
Under. black
Under. red

Porcelain paper, Perforated. 13½,
# 48 Gray, light gray
Under. black
Under. red


Reprints 5r. Gray. Under black, Porcelain paper 1885, 1905

1885 Paper, one of the most typical elements of these reprints, is very white, thick, and of compact and uniform texture. Usually without gum. Some examples were gummed after printing, accumulating glue in the troughs.

Because they have the same characteristics in terms of paper and color, a set of stamps appeared on the market from 1890 to 1893 are also included in this group of reprints, also called "Postal Congress". They were produced clandestinely in the "Casa da Moeda "and, many of them, overprinted with " PROVA "," SPECIMEN ", etc.

1905 The paper and spleen, slightly yellowish, of medium thickness and irregular texture. The colors, very characteristic of this reprint, have little brightness, and are usually mortiças. The gum is thin and slightly yellowish. The specimens are thin and thin.


Hope this is of some help.

-k-

Like
Login to Like
this post

https://www.stampcol ...
Members Picture
keesindy

22 Oct 2017
04:54:13pm

re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

Thank you, "k," for that information. The translation tools available today are much improved and this was easy to follow. Your information reminded me that I had read descriptions of the porcelana paper in an older Portu-Info journal. In trying to find the paper descriptions, I stumbled upon a detailed article from 2000 about the issuance of this set of stamps.

I need to study that article and will post more information later. Stay tuned!

Tom


Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
Members Picture
keesindy

22 Oct 2017
10:11:14pm

re: Has Scott made one or more errors in their Azores 1882-85 listings for the A21 type King Luiz stamps?

OK. Here is what I learned from the ISPP journal article.

I happened to belong to the International Society of Portuguese Philately for a few years many years ago and had looked for information on the Azores overprints in the Portu-Info journal issues and back issues I still have. However, I had overlooked the Robert Huggins article in the January-March 2000 issue. The article is titled “PORTUGAL: Notes on the Luis De Frente Issue Designed by Mouchon.” It answers some of the questions that Scott and Barefoot didn’t answer.

The article presents a history of the set beginning in 1882 when the 25r was first printed, but focuses on the 5r. Mr. Huggins explains that the initial 5r printing in 1883 and a subsequent printing were the gray and pale gray colors.

He presents the chronology of the 5r printing in a table. In 1887, a grayish black perf 11½ was printed on unsurfaced paper. The fully black version of the 5r wasn’t printed until 1888 and was on chalky paper with perfs 11½, 12½ and 13½. Mr. Huggins says this printing was done on both porcelana and porcelana ordinario papers.

The table lists 1885 and 1905 5r reprints, but all are perf 13½ and on unsurfaced paper. The 1885 reprints were gray and brownish gray colors. The 1905 reprints were pale yellowish gray and grayish black.

According to Mr. Huggins, there were two dies for printing the 5r. Die I included the barely legible name MOUCHON below the king’s tie. The name was entirely or mostly missing in Die II. Black 5r stamps are Die I.

Mr. Huggins also addresses the catalog listings for the 5r. Scott (1999 edition) and Minkus (1982-83 edition) were the worst. He believes the Simoes Ferreira (1981) catalog did the best job overall of cataloging the 5r.
______________________________

The 2016 Scott Classic Specialized Catalogue includes in the Portugal listings all three perf varieties for both the gray and the black 5r on chalky (enamel surfaced) paper. For the Azores overprint listings, Scott lists only the three gray varieties (but changed the color name to slate). Given Scott’s history, it’s easy to assume an error of omission that has persisted for a very long time. If we go by J. Barefoot, there should be Azores 5r red overprints on perfs 11½ and 13½, but Barefoot doesn’t clearly state if these would be the gray (slate) or black stamps or both.

It now seems clear my stamps are not reprints and are unlisted by Scott. Given that the 2000 article by Huggins mostly corroborates and helps clarify what J. Barefoot had published in 1983, I suppose I should contact Scott.

Like
Login to Like
this post

"I no longer collect, but will never abandon the hobby"
        

Contact Webmaster | Visitors Online | Unsubscribe Emails


User Agreement

Copyright © 2022 Stamporama.com