(RCSD) Ceylon Forged Overprint

(RCSD) Ceylon Forged Overprint

Here is a scan of (Ceylon Scott #88) with what
appears to be a forged overprint.
http://www342.pair.com/elerner/stamp...88-ejl4166.jpg

At least, the seller is honest.
He has marked the back of the stamp as "FAKE".
http://www342.pair.com/elerner/stamp...8-ejl4166b.jpg


This looks like Scott #117, but is a lilac rose shade. Wmk 2.
I believe that there is a note after Scott #123
that describes this forgery. Would anyone have any
further information on this item?

Blair

On 2 July, 19:15, "Blair (TC)" wrote:
(RCSD) Ceylon Forged Overprint

Here is a scan of (Ceylon Scott #88) with what
appears to be a forged overprint.http://www342.pair.com/elerner/stamp...88-ejl4166.jpg

At least, the seller is honest.
He has marked the back of the stamp as "FAKE".http://www342.pair.com/elerner/stamp...8-ejl4166b.jpg

This looks like Scott #117, but is a lilac rose shade. Wmk 2.
I believe that there is a note after Scott #123
that describes this forgery. Would anyone have any
further information on this item?

Blair

SG Commonwealth says: "The 5c on 4c rosy mauve and 5c on 24c green,
both watermarked Crown CA, previously catalogued are now considered to
be forgeries."

No indication there as to when/why they were declared non-kosher, but
I have an old, 1933, non-SG cat which includes them at CVs in the
range £10-£50. The above disclaimer is in the oldest SG I have, dated
1993.

Chris

On Jul 2, 1:43*pm, wrote:
On 2 July, 19:15, "Blair (TC)" wrote:

(RCSD) Ceylon Forged Overprint

Here is a scan of (Ceylon Scott #88) with what
appears to be a forged overprint.http://www342.pair.com/elerner/stamp...88-ejl4166.jpg

At least, the seller is honest.
He has marked the back of the stamp as "FAKE".http://www342.pair.com/elerner/stamp...8-ejl4166b.jpg

This looks like Scott #117, but is a lilac rose shade. Wmk 2.
I believe that there is a note after Scott #123
that describes this forgery. Would anyone have any
further information on this item?

Blair

SG Commonwealth says: "The 5c on 4c rosy mauve and 5c on 24c green,
both watermarked Crown CA, previously catalogued are now considered to
be forgeries."

No indication there as to when/why they were declared non-kosher, but
I have an old, 1933, non-SG cat which includes them at CVs in the
range £10-£50. The above disclaimer is in the oldest SG I have, dated
1993.

Chris

Thanks Chris. I cannot seem to find when the change was made either.
I have an old SG (mid 60s) buried in my library at home. I will have
to try
and dig it out, to see what they had about it.

Cheers
Blair

1963 gibbons
http://cjoint.com/data/hdaNbPUuNk.htm
HTH




SG Commonwealth says: "The 5c on 4c rosy mauve and 5c on 24c green,
both watermarked Crown CA, previously catalogued are now considered to
be forgeries."

No indication there as to when/why they were declared non-kosher, but
I have an old, 1933, non-SG cat which includes them at CVs in the
range £10-£50. The above disclaimer is in the oldest SG I have, dated
1993.

Chris

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:56:24 -0700 (PDT), Blair wrote:

On Jul 2, 1:43*pm, wrote:
On 2 July, 19:15, "Blair (TC)" wrote:

(RCSD) Ceylon Forged Overprint

Here is a scan of (Ceylon Scott #88) with what
appears to be a forged overprint.http://www342.pair.com/elerner/stamp...88-ejl4166.jpg

At least, the seller is honest.
He has marked the back of the stamp as "FAKE".http://www342.pair.com/elerner/stamp...8-ejl4166b.jpg

This looks like Scott #117, but is a lilac rose shade. Wmk 2.
I believe that there is a note after Scott #123
that describes this forgery. Would anyone have any
further information on this item?

Blair

SG Commonwealth says: "The 5c on 4c rosy mauve and 5c on 24c green,
both watermarked Crown CA, previously catalogued are now considered to
be forgeries."

No indication there as to when/why they were declared non-kosher, but
I have an old, 1933, non-SG cat which includes them at CVs in the
range £10-£50. The above disclaimer is in the oldest SG I have, dated
1993.

Chris

Thanks Chris. I cannot seem to find when the change was made either.
I have an old SG (mid 60s) buried in my library at home. I will have
to try
and dig it out, to see what they had about it.

Cheers
Blair


Both still listed in my 1981 Sg Part1

Cheers - Brian

It's still listed in my 1984 Part 1, at £150 mint/£100 used.

Robson Lowe includes this warning in a box and in bold

DANGER
Collectors and dealers are warned that there are many very clever
forgeries of the rare surcharges and errors in these provisional
issues. However good the source, they should not be purchased without
the certificate of one of the British expert committees.

but he still lists this stamp, unpriced mint or used.

Tony

On Jul 3, 6:08*am, Asia-translation
wrote:
It's still listed in my 1984 Part 1, at £150 mint/£100 used.

Robson Lowe includes this warning in a box and in bold

DANGER
Collectors and dealers are warned that there are many very clever
forgeries of the rare surcharges and errors in these provisional
issues. *However good the source, they should not be purchased without
the certificate of one of the British expert committees.

but he still lists this stamp, unpriced mint or used.

Tony


"Curiouser and curiouser" cried Blair.

8*)

Dammed... i have such a stamp but it is a swiss one. It is a sitting
helvetia 50 cents green stampnummer F2

Pater Brown

What? ....no image?
(take ten points.......off)


"Pater Brown" wrote in message
...
Dammed... i have such a stamp but it is a swiss one. It is a sitting
helvetia 50 cents green stampnummer F2

Pater Brown