achlenov
Banned
Posts: 262
Registered: 5/16/2004
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
Provisional perforation or a damaged stamp?
I bought it as a "provisional perforation" but Michael thinks it is just a damaged stamp  Any other thoughts out there? Examples?
|
|
|
Gary
Deceased
Posts: 1631
Registered: 10/18/2002
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
My vote is for damaged, but I have no examples to show.
|
|
|
tedim2
Major Philatelist
Posts: 90
Registered: 7/28/2006
Location: The South, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Volkodav
|
|
Not one, not one private perforation is know on any provisional postal
history item.
|
|
|
Alep
Major Philatelist
Posts: 371
Registered: 5/21/2005
Location: Estonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No, you are not right in this assertion. Here are some examples:
1) Kwellenstein, Livland province
|
|
|
Alep
Major Philatelist
Posts: 371
Registered: 5/21/2005
Location: Estonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
2) Kavkazskaya-Vokzal
|
|
|
Alep
Major Philatelist
Posts: 371
Registered: 5/21/2005
Location: Estonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
3) TPO 280 Vologda-Petrograd, posted at Tikhvin.
I can show more and I have seen more.
|
|
|
achlenov
Banned
Posts: 262
Registered: 5/16/2004
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
Very interesting indeed! Could you send me more scans? Maybe we'll include them in the catalog... What do you think?
|
|
|
tedim2
Major Philatelist
Posts: 90
Registered: 7/28/2006
Location: The South, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Volkodav
|
|
Do you have any examples with inflationary rate increase or value revaluated.
|
|
|
tedim2
Major Philatelist
Posts: 90
Registered: 7/28/2006
Location: The South, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Volkodav
|
|
The scans featured are great examples of private perforations, unfortunately none are provisional usage.
Although private perforation is an interesting topic, they cannot be
considered provisional as they do not meet the requirements or definition of provisional usage. So I re-assert that none are known on cover and can
not be considered provisional.
|
|
|
Alep
Major Philatelist
Posts: 371
Registered: 5/21/2005
Location: Estonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It seems to me that there is a confusion with the term 'provisional'. In English, this is euivalent to 'temporary', while achlenov and you proceed
from the term 'provisorii' adopted in the Russian philatelic literature for local revaluation surcharges/overprints on stamps. Thus, there exist local
perforations on current imperforate stamps rather than 'provisional' perforations (such term has no sence at all). The perforations on scans are just
local but not necessarily private perforations, since they were manufactured most probably by postal officials of particular post offices. As to the
local perforations of locally revalued stamps, they are, at least, unknown even as loose copies.
|
|
|
jlechtanski
Moderator
Posts: 645
Registered: 7/7/2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood.
|
|
Moscow 1917. An example from the Raritan Auction #29. Click on lot 524:
http://www.raritanstamps.com/Cat/NewCatFrame.htm
|
|
|
Gary
Deceased
Posts: 1631
Registered: 10/18/2002
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Wasn't the 2-kop rate for printed matter abroad was the standard rate for items up to 4 lots until 1 September 1917. Maybe not?
|
|
|
Alep
Major Philatelist
Posts: 371
Registered: 5/21/2005
Location: Estonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just so, but per every 50 grams.
|
|
|
Gary
Deceased
Posts: 1631
Registered: 10/18/2002
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sounds good.
1 Lot = 3 zolotnik = 12.797 g
4 lot = 51.2 grams approximately.
So 2-kop franking is not unusual for printed matter. Thanks.
|
|
|
Jeff
|
Thread Moved
6/4/2020 at 09:10 |
![[*]](./images/samovar/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
