Mexico queries.

The question is, which one the forgery?
http://cjoint.com/data/enppArf3Q5.htm

Why forge such a common low value stamp?
Contrary to what I believed prior, Gibbons
shows these as having usage, has this been overuled?

Regarding the lower issue, anyone have Gibbons numbers
or a list of issues bearing the G.P de M. overprint?

Thanks

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:21:41 +0800, "Rod"
wrote:

The question is, which one the forgery?
http://cjoint.com/data/enppArf3Q5.htm

Why forge such a common low value stamp?
Contrary to what I believed prior, Gibbons
shows these as having usage, has this been overuled?

Regarding the lower issue, anyone have Gibbons numbers
or a list of issues bearing the G.P de M. overprint?

Forgery? The only forgeries for these puppies were the overprints and
cancellations. The right one (SG 17a) is the original by American
Bank Note Co, on yellow paper. The copy you show was a remainder,
because the "published" copies had overprints.

The left one was a reprint by the National Bank Note Company, on white
paper. These were never issued.

Colors range from deep to reddish brown.

During this time, the Republican govt. moved from Saltillo to Monterey
(March to August).

SG Overseas 3 1977 Edition, page C354.

To answer your question on forging / printing lower value stamps, this
was a practice for stamp packets. The Seebeck printings were done on
real plates, but he (apparently) printed what he wanted on them.
Doubt this issue was involved there, but there are many Seebeck
printings of Latin / South America.

=======================
Tracy Barber
-----------------------
adirondack-pc
-----------------------
"Freebie Stamp Project"
=======================

Rod wrote:

http://cjoint.com/data/enppArf3Q5.htm

Regarding the lower issue, anyone have Gibbons numbers
or a list of issues bearing the G.P de M. overprint?

There are a couple of pages of these in SG Part 15, including a similar
overprint without surcharge value. The basic numbers are 309 to 386 and
O358-O368, which you can look up for free at
http://www.allworldstamps.com/

Varieties not shown on the free listing a-

312a-317a overprint reading down intead of up
318a-320a overprint inverted
329a-336a on "GONSTITUCIONALISTA" error
330b-334b overprint reading down intead of up
337a-339a overprint inverted
344a overprint reading down intead of up
349a-355a overprint reading down intead of up
356a overprint inverted
357a overprint double
370a surcharge reading up instead of down
371a-372a surcharge double
376a surcharge inverted
377a-380a on "GONSTITUCIONALISTA" error
377b surcharge inverted
377c surcharge double, up/down
382a surcharge vertical
385a surcharge inverted

E-mail me if scans (whihc include extra notes) would be clearer.

Chris

Thanks for your (excellent) replies gentlemen,

Tracy,
I just assumd a forgery,
because as I see it there are two engravings,
the design differs obviously between the two images,
the "Mejico" script is the most obvious, and then the eyes.
My scan images were taken from two different scanners
so the ratio shown differs.
When I flip between my two images the difference is striking.
I bow to your greater knowledge
but remain curious





"Rod" wrote in message
...
The question is, which one the forgery?
http://cjoint.com/data/enppArf3Q5.htm

Why forge such a common low value stamp?
Contrary to what I believed prior, Gibbons
shows these as having usage, has this been overuled?

Regarding the lower issue, anyone have Gibbons numbers
or a list of issues bearing the G.P de M. overprint?

Thanks

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:53:56 +0800, "Rod"
wrote:

Thanks for your (excellent) replies gentlemen,

Tracy,
I just assumd a forgery,
because as I see it there are two engravings,
the design differs obviously between the two images,
the "Mejico" script is the most obvious, and then the eyes.
My scan images were taken from two different scanners
so the ratio shown differs.
When I flip between my two images the difference is striking.
I bow to your greater knowledge
but remain curious

The same type of thing happened to classic Portugal stamps, a few
times. They were reprinted for collectors or whatever, even though
the current king / queen were long dead. Usually, there was a
perforation or paper difference, but all in all - quite confusing.

This is above and beyond the myriad of flyspeck variations that were
legit postal stamps.

=======================
Tracy Barber
-----------------------
adirondack-pc
-----------------------
"Freebie Stamp Project"
=======================

Yes, Stamps and hanky panky marry well.
One is reminded about the classic perforation debacle
when a high ranking Austrian ordered an (underhand) quantity of perforation
sizes on (the very handsome) 1906 Bosnian "views" set.

As invariably humans do, the order was processed incorrectly, and the
fellow ended up with hundreds of "sheets" rather than individual
items, one can view now the catalogue perforations list in most
specialised catalogues, quite an amusing matrix we have.

............that is, "as the story goes"





The same type of thing happened to classic Portugal stamps, a few
times. They were reprinted for collectors or whatever, even though
the current king / queen were long dead. Usually, there was a
perforation or paper difference, but all in all - quite confusing.

This is above and beyond the myriad of flyspeck variations that were
legit postal stamps.