Possible Fakes?

Hi all,

I was going through a small collection I just acquired off of ebay when I came across these stamps that were tucked behind some others on the stock book page. I am pretty sure that the Confederate stamp is a fake of some kind but I have not been able to find the last three in any of the references I have. I don't think the perfs were trimmed off due to the width of the margins but I can't be sure.

There is also an imperf J5 or J12 that I neglected to scan. Has anyone seen anything like these before?

On the US stamps it is probable they were jumbo margin copies and trimmed - mutilated.
I am not expert on Confederates so no opinion on the first one.

The confederate one is a fake in my opinion... Could the other ones be proofs or essays?

They seem to be a little beat up but the 2nd 3rd and 4th seem legit. They are either proofs used postally or more probably trimmed off perforations. The 1st looks to be a crude fake.

Here's a genuine Confederate Andrew Jackson. You can see the difference in the quality of the drawing and reproduction. Yours is definitely a fake or facsimile, possibly a Springfield reproduction.

Your Confederate stamp is definitely a Springfield forgery. I don't have a decent enough picture of one to show here, but trust me the poor quality one I have is a dead ringer for yours.
Here's an excerpt from a story about Confederate forgeries published in American Philatelist in January 2011:

'While there are many CSA forgeries that have been created over the years, my own preference is for those created before 1940, and there is no shortage of types. Perhaps the most plentiful of these are the so-called "Springfield" forgeries. These items, printed mostly on newsprint-type paper, really would fool almost no one, and that was never their intent. Created by H.E. MacIntosh, owner of the Tatham Stamp & Coin Company, the facsimiles were intended to be used in his famous Tasco booklets. Two types of these booklets were created. They are designated by MacIntosh stock numbers.

This booklet was a radical departure from all previous editions, which used genuine stamps to illustrate types. It (and the companion T7 booklet) also appear to be the only instance in which MacIntosh skated near the edge of legitimacy. Rather than serving primarily as an identification guide, this 1941 product is an eight-page booklet that gives a brief history of the Confederacy and its postal service. The booklet then describes the general issues of the Confederate States, but no real stamps are included. Each stamp is illustrated with mounted lithographed "facsimiles," created in 1934 by MacIntosh (without permission) from copyrighted illustrations by Confederate expert August Dietz. Dietz later informed MacIntosh that he was breaking the law by selling unmarked counterfeits and violating Dietz's copyright. MacIntosh then marked the backs "Facsimilie." One would never guess by looking at this selection of forgeries that they are supposedly all the same design! Differences are described in the text.

These forgeries, now known as the "Springfield Facsimilie" are so noted in the Scott catalogue. Those that have come onto the philatelic market since (both mounted and not) have the word "Facsimile" printed on the back. Supposedly the first issues also exist canceled, but I've not seen these, other than a fuzzy illustration in the Dietz catalogue. All of these facsimiles are also known in blocks and larger multiples. A full set of sheets of twenty-five is shown. The booklet containing singles originally sold for thirty-five cents.'

IF the top of the 3¢ Washington is an old gum remnant than it's a Stamp with trimmed perforations. For the life of me I will never understand why someone would trim down a Stamp with Boardwalk margins.

Could have been a proof on india paper and hinged into an album. the 2nd, 3rd look like proofs on india paper like I said, and the 4th is just a trimmed postally used regular issue. Just my 2¢ anyway.

Thanks everyone. I was pretty sure about the CSA and the other 3 I will classify as proofs for now.

These came as part of a small collection from an ebay dealer with a very good rating here http://www.theswedishtiger.com/dEbay.htm so I am pretty sure that these were just thrown in as extras to what I was really getting.

Are proofs cataloged anywhere?

The Scott's Specialized Catalogue has listings of Die and Plate proofs and Trial Colour proofs, though none of these pages have any images.

You can read the Album Weeds for CSA describing the classic forgeries here:

http://stampforgeries.com/album-wee...-of-america/

I've just checked my Tasco Booklet [T7] which has blocks of 4 and there is no likeness at all with the reproduction in the initial post.

Of course that means nothing as there were a number of printings of the Springfields, and different booklets exist.

I am still looking for a T6 booklet if anyone comes across one, please give me the heads up.





Londonbus1

These three are all trimmed stamps. They are not proofs. Since we don't know what they looked like originally, there is no way to know why they were trimmed. They might have been damaged on one or two sides to start with. Or when either, it might have been 100 years ago or more.

For whatever its worth...some years ago (sometime in the 90s), there was a used, imperforated three-cent large banknote on E-Bay. In the discription, it was noted that there was a footnote in the Scott Specialized referring to there being some imperforated large banknotes. I remember looking, and I recall seeing the notation in the catalogue after a listing for, I think, a three-cent banknote. I do not have that catalogue--I think I gave it to my grandaughter, so I can't substantiate that assertion--I may even be mistaken that it was there--too long ago to be sure. I looked in my current (2010) catelogue and find no such notation anywhere.

I've looked through some older Scotts; in a 1949 Scott Specialized there is listing for imperforated large banknotes for #s 147,156,158,178,184,191,210,211,212,214,216,217,& 218. The only one currently listed in my 2010 Scott Specialized is the 156f. There are the following listings in the Philatelic Foundation data base as imperforate singles or pairs, used or unused issues: 136b,147c,156a, 178a, 191b, 210b, 212a, 213a, 216a, 216b, 217a & 218a---none of which are listed in Scott (except as noted above). In the catalogue for the sale of the William S. Floyd collection by Shereves in Oct. of 2001, there is a listing for 136b, 178a,191b,212a,213a,216b & 217a.

I guess that at some time there was supposition that there are imperforated large banknotes. I don't know if the experts recently have determined that they are actually essays or proofs or something else. Perhaps someone has more that can be added about that.

I'm not indicating that these imperfs. shown are not large margine stamps that have been trimmed down, or proofs or anything else. Just wanted to mention that at least at some point in time there was consideration for imperforated large banknotes.

Al E. Gator that is quite fascinating! I'd love to read more about that.

Imperforate Bank Note issues on stamp paper 134-229 used to be listed among the stamps, on the supposition that they were inadvertently imperforate. The current opinion, as ratified by the various expert committees, is that in most cases they are plate proofs on stamp paper. They are now listed among the proofs, often with a P4 designation which unfortunately overlaps with the plate proofs on cardboard. A few are designated as P5 or P6. I will continue to suggest to Scott that they all should be designated P5 alongside nothing else.