Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Item: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181505310258
The cds is a fairly common Amoy strike but nicely centred and 100% complete. That is not what attracted the bidding frenzy.
The bidders were suckered in by the other cancellation; the multi-rayed 'sunburst'. This marking has been attributed to Shanghai only.
It would seem that some thought this might be a rare find; used in Amoy.
The trouble is, the Shanghai sunburst was last recorded in 1866. The above Amoy cancellation is dated 1902.
What makes this worrying is the fact that the sunburst is very convincing. I have yet to actually check it in detail (dimensions and ray thickness), suffice to say that there may be others out there. One can only hope that if the faker created more of these, his lack of knowledge may have restricted his choice of adhesives to those that were 'out of period'.
This, I think, illustrates the saying,"A little knowledge is dangerous". Another example of some eBay buyers stupidity.
Login to Like
this post
Or it could be someone fraudulently re-using a previously postmarked stamp !( joking).In any case if that were the case surely a purist would not accept it as a genuine use of the rare postmark anyway !
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
Malcolm, you wrote: "Or it could be someone fraudulently re-using a previously postmarked stamp !( joking)". Well that's exactly what it is. The sunburst was added later.
I monitor Hong Kong eBay sales fairly closely. You are right, the purists do stay away from such material but there are many who are just speculators.
Usually, it's the bargain bonanza brigade that fall over themselves to buy this nonsense. They are the ones who rely just on the Treaty Port cancellation section at the back of Stanley Gibbons catalogues; one of the worst inclusions by SG in my opinion. Even the Yang catalogue is wayward.
Apart from being out of period, the faker has not successfully reproduced the ink. Which is the one element that defies accurate forgery.
This sort of material should be researched and compared with genuine copies.
Oh! I forgot to add, the 'hammer' price of $177 actually indicates that this was a duffer. If it had been genuine, the price would have been a multiple of that.
Login to Like
this post
This pair of Hong Kong QV 4c stamps have just sold on eBay this weekend for US $177.50.
Item: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181505310258
The cds is a fairly common Amoy strike but nicely centred and 100% complete. That is not what attracted the bidding frenzy.
The bidders were suckered in by the other cancellation; the multi-rayed 'sunburst'. This marking has been attributed to Shanghai only.
It would seem that some thought this might be a rare find; used in Amoy.
The trouble is, the Shanghai sunburst was last recorded in 1866. The above Amoy cancellation is dated 1902.
What makes this worrying is the fact that the sunburst is very convincing. I have yet to actually check it in detail (dimensions and ray thickness), suffice to say that there may be others out there. One can only hope that if the faker created more of these, his lack of knowledge may have restricted his choice of adhesives to those that were 'out of period'.
This, I think, illustrates the saying,"A little knowledge is dangerous". Another example of some eBay buyers stupidity.
Login to Like
this post
11:31:01am
re: Worrying fake Hong Kong treaty port cancellation, on eBay.
Or it could be someone fraudulently re-using a previously postmarked stamp !( joking).In any case if that were the case surely a purist would not accept it as a genuine use of the rare postmark anyway !
Malcolm
Login to Like
this post
re: Worrying fake Hong Kong treaty port cancellation, on eBay.
Malcolm, you wrote: "Or it could be someone fraudulently re-using a previously postmarked stamp !( joking)". Well that's exactly what it is. The sunburst was added later.
I monitor Hong Kong eBay sales fairly closely. You are right, the purists do stay away from such material but there are many who are just speculators.
Usually, it's the bargain bonanza brigade that fall over themselves to buy this nonsense. They are the ones who rely just on the Treaty Port cancellation section at the back of Stanley Gibbons catalogues; one of the worst inclusions by SG in my opinion. Even the Yang catalogue is wayward.
Apart from being out of period, the faker has not successfully reproduced the ink. Which is the one element that defies accurate forgery.
This sort of material should be researched and compared with genuine copies.
Oh! I forgot to add, the 'hammer' price of $177 actually indicates that this was a duffer. If it had been genuine, the price would have been a multiple of that.
Login to Like
this post