|
|
(RCSD) Netherlands Scott #43 postmarked 1887
Hi,
Can anyone help with this? I have what appear to be two Princess Wilhelmina stamps of the 1894 issue that are postmarked in 1887. They are cancelled exactly a week apart in the same city. The 8s do not appear to be modified 9s. Image: http://www.mcgees.org/img/netherlands43.jpeg Do people think these are authentic, and, if so, is there any premium to them? Regards, Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org |
(RCSD) Netherlands Scott #43 postmarked 1887
The image link is now fixed.
Sorry for the double-post, new news program. - Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org "Joshua McGee" wrote in message ... Hi, Can anyone help with this? I have what appear to be two Princess Wilhelmina stamps of the 1894 issue that are postmarked in 1887. They are cancelled exactly a week apart in the same city. The 8s do not appear to be modified 9s. Image: http://www.mcgees.org/img/netherlands43.jpeg Do people think these are authentic, and, if so, is there any premium to them? Regards, Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org |
(RCSD) Netherlands Scott #43 postmarked 1887
To me, both appear to be '97' with overinked 9's. Note
that while there is an indentation on the left side of the figure, the right side is perfectly straight. Also, if they were 8's, the top circle should be smaller than the bottom one. Here it's the opposite. Jay Carrigan change domain to mchsi www.jaypex.com In article , says... The image link is now fixed. Sorry for the double-post, new news program. - Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org "Joshua McGee" wrote in message ... Hi, Can anyone help with this? I have what appear to be two Princess Wilhelmina stamps of the 1894 issue that are postmarked in 1887. They are cancelled exactly a week apart in the same city. The 8s do not appear to be modified 9s. Image: http://www.mcgees.org/img/netherlands43.jpeg Do people think these are authentic, and, if so, is there any premium to them? Regards, Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org |
(RCSD) Netherlands Scott #43 postmarked 1887
I agree to Jay Carrigan's commet. Even more so since the type of cancel used
on both stamps was issued to Rotterdam on August 31, 1895. Ton "Jay T. Carrigan" schreef in bericht news:__Lfj.286474$Fc.215367@attbi_s21... To me, both appear to be '97' with overinked 9's. Note that while there is an indentation on the left side of the figure, the right side is perfectly straight. Also, if they were 8's, the top circle should be smaller than the bottom one. Here it's the opposite. Jay Carrigan change domain to mchsi www.jaypex.com In article , says... The image link is now fixed. Sorry for the double-post, new news program. - Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org "Joshua McGee" wrote in message ... Hi, Can anyone help with this? I have what appear to be two Princess Wilhelmina stamps of the 1894 issue that are postmarked in 1887. They are cancelled exactly a week apart in the same city. The 8s do not appear to be modified 9s. Image: http://www.mcgees.org/img/netherlands43.jpeg Do people think these are authentic, and, if so, is there any premium to them? Regards, Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org |
(RCSD) Netherlands Scott #43 postmarked 1887
This stamp was issued first in 1891 ! Dutch Catalogue NVPH # 37
So 1887 is impossible! Regards, Hans Jay T. Carrigan schreef: To me, both appear to be '97' with overinked 9's. Note that while there is an indentation on the left side of the figure, the right side is perfectly straight. Also, if they were 8's, the top circle should be smaller than the bottom one. Here it's the opposite. Jay Carrigan change domain to mchsi www.jaypex.com In article , says... The image link is now fixed. Sorry for the double-post, new news program. - Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org "Joshua McGee" wrote in message ... Hi, Can anyone help with this? I have what appear to be two Princess Wilhelmina stamps of the 1894 issue that are postmarked in 1887. They are cancelled exactly a week apart in the same city. The 8s do not appear to be modified 9s. Image: http://www.mcgees.org/img/netherlands43.jpeg Do people think these are authentic, and, if so, is there any premium to them? Regards, Joshua McGee http://www.mcgees.org |
(RCSD) Netherlands Scott #43 postmarked 1887
Hans,
I took it that the OP knew this, but sought opinions as to their being genuine cancels. and not engineered. This stamp was issued first in 1891 ! Dutch Catalogue NVPH # 37 So 1887 is impossible! Regards, Hans |
(RCSD) Netherlands Scott #43 postmarked 1887
Thanks, Rodney. I thought there were three possibilities:
1) Wrong decade slug in the cancellation die 2) Forged cancel 3) Over-inking leading to a '9' appearing as an '8' Ton's comment, while fascinating, does not necessarily rule out any of the possibilities. But upon advice, I examined the 8 in the '18" to see how a proper '8' appears in the slug font. And I think it's pretty clear it's option 3 above. Thanks, everyone. - Joshua McGee "rodney" wrote in message ... Hans, I took it that the OP knew this, but sought opinions as to their being genuine cancels. and not engineered. This stamp was issued first in 1891 ! Dutch Catalogue NVPH # 37 So 1887 is impossible! Regards, Hans |
(RCSD) Netherlands Scott #43 postmarked 1887
"Joshua McGee" And I think it's pretty clear it's option 3 above. That was my opinion too, it is still quirky that you have two, just a few days apart and even having being struck at a similar jaunty angle. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CollectingBanter.com