cec71
Major Philatelist
Posts: 200
Registered: 1/26/2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Genuine vs forgeries
The original description of genuine vs forgeries was based on the article by Varro in an AP article published in 1983. See citation p 240. The
genuine and forgeries in that article conform to the current photos shown.
|
|
|
cec71
Major Philatelist
Posts: 200
Registered: 1/26/2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Did Ceresa have any comments on this issue in his series of monographs on forgeries? I could not find any mention in my index of these? Will get
a copy of the follow up APS article you noted.
|
|
|
darwin67
Czarist
Posts: 25
Registered: 5/5/2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Varro Tyler, in the Linn's publication Focus on Forgeries (pub.2000), reinterated his statement of 1984. When I read the recent AP articler I also was
struck by the contradictions.
I wonder if the author was aware of Tyler's published retraction of his earlier opinion?
|
|
|
darwin67
Czarist
Posts: 25
Registered: 5/5/2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I just noticed that Leon Finik is currently offering both perforated and imperforate sets of Western Army stamps for sale. These are the types that
Tyler, in his 1984 retraction, stated were genuine.
|
|
|
cec71
Major Philatelist
Posts: 200
Registered: 1/26/2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
In the Progress Report published by Tyler in the May 84, AP he states,"However, if you believe this present article will provide a final, definitive
answer to the question of the identity of the genuine and forged stamps, YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED (capital letters my addition).
Each should classify these stamps as they wish.
|
|
|
cec71
Major Philatelist
Posts: 200
Registered: 1/26/2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Also in the Progress Report Tyler suggests an analysis of the genuine/forgeries by color and type of paper. A Letter to the Editor of the American
Philatelist might be helpful to prod the author the disputed article to do an analysis of the forgeries by paper etc. as he did on the genuine issues.
Possibly this could further the separation of genuine and forgery.
|
|
|
igorfmyask
Major Philatelist
Posts: 125
Registered: 1/8/2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: Monarchist
|
|
Varro Tyler was right in his first publication.
There are documents in the Hoover Institution Archive related to this issue. In according to documents chief of West Army Public Relation Division
A.K. Remmer ordered postal and revenue stamps at Gotz' Litography in Berlin. About 9-10 million stamps were prepared but seized by German police
together with plates after Avalov-Bermondt started offensive attack on Riga. The only 160,000 stamps (both postal and revenue) survived becouse they
were in possetion of captain Gershelman who had to deliver them to Latvia. Looks like Gotz wishing to recovery money he spent, prepared new plates,
printed some amount of stamps and sold them to Hanover dealer so Gotz' forgeries became considered as genuine stamps. Of course Dr. Ceresa did not
know this story when he wrote his handbooks because the documents were published in Russia in 2003.
|
|
|
cec71
Major Philatelist
Posts: 200
Registered: 1/26/2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Genuine vs type I and II forgeries
This additional information still does not help to ascertain which are the genuine (original or first printing) and which are the "forged" (reprinted
or reengraved stamps). If the printer produced new plates then do we assume the original or first printings were the genuine and the new plates are
the forgeries? Looks like which came first the chicken or the egg?
|
|
|
Dr. Ray Ceresa
Czarist
Posts: 41
Registered: 9/27/2003
Location: Felpham, W. Sssex, UK.
Member Is Offline
Mood: A little confused
|
|
I have now amassed about 2-3,000 copies of this issue including many sheets.
Abrief summary is as follows:
Original issue appeared in about 1930 ( I purchase my first copies at 4 for a penny in 1934 and still have the very same stamps with flour and water
paste still on the backs). Printed on thin semi -translucent gummed paper.
Reprints on a variety of papers from 1932 onwards.
Printing from new set of plates by the original printers. (originally identified as F1 forgery with the reshaped P)
Reprints on the same variety of papers from 193 onwards (probably at same time as regional reprints to meet the demand for the issue).
50 kop blue with very worn plates and retouched on every position of the plate giving 100 subtypes
A printing of 1 kop. in brown from a new plate with 50 stamps. (This is not a half sheet but a new printing by the original printers). Paper has
creamish colour tinted by the brown ink.
The scarce F2 forgeries not easy to spot.
The F3 forgery very common appeared about 1938
Collectors forgeries prepared by photocopying or scanning (genuine or forged) always on normal white paper for photocopiers or printers.
My digital forgery printed on white office paper (prepared for fun and for comparison.
All the above issued imperf.
Later varius perf. varieties appeared from other sources.
If there is sufficient interest I will scan selected items.
|
|
|
![[*]](./images/samovar/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
