Batum Scott # 17

more from my collection

A followup...

I want to report my findings about Varro Tyler's Focus on Forgeries copyright 2000, and his Batum Genuine/Forgery signs on page 27 & page 28. I had the older edition before (1993), and it did not include Batum in that book. I now have the 2000 edition.

Keep in mind, I am not an expert, nor do I play one on SCF.
But I have taken an interest in the "Aloe tree" Batum forgeries, so take this discussion for what it is worth.

• His Forgery first type is my nomenclature Forgery II, and Forgery second type is my Forgery I. Keep that in mind.

I will be using his nomenclature here for consistency for those that have the book.

• He directly compares a 1919 Scott 1 5 kopeck green genuine with a Tyler first type forgery (My Forgery II). As he clearly points out, for the kopeck values, the genuine will have six white dots over the right value tablet, while the first type forgery will have seven dots.

And the Tyler second type forgery (My Forgery I) will also show seven dots.

He does state that the genuine kopecks have a joined KA in the upper inscription tablet. That is indeed true for the plain Scott 1-3 (not overprinted) Kopecks.

But, similarly, does the first type forgery always have a joined KA for the Kopeck values (Scott 1-3)?

Yes, the joined KA is common for the Tyler type one forgery, but not always.

Take a look at this example....


Batum "Aloe Tree" Scott 1 5k green (genuine)
Tyler Type one Forgery ( My Forgery II)

Note the Tyler type one 5k forgery is not joined at the KA.

• Bottom Line: For Kopeck (Scott 1-3) values, the Genuine values appear to have the joined KA, while the Tyler type one usually are joined, but not always, as shown above.

Why does he discuss this? Because the Tyler type two forgeries (Which he does not illustrate), are never joined at the KA.

So is his "KA" test valuable for the plain (Scott 1-3) issue versus Tyler forgery type one and Tyler forgery type two?

Yes, but there are exceptions.

But remember some other easily found signs: The Tyler type one forgeries are always found on white paper, and have the easily seen "Curved Branch" sign (See earlier posts).

Tyler then shows the ruble values (page 28) with the 1919 Scott 4 1r red brown and a Tyler type one forgery. (He does not illustrate Tyler forgery two.) His discussion is good for the plain series only (Scott 4-6), as we will see in a moment.

Again, the genuine copies have a joined KA (except if there is a printing flaw, which I happened to note in an example I have).

The ruble values Tyler type one forgeries also have a joined KA. (But recall the 5 Kopeck value above did not have it.)

And, significantly, the ruble values Tyler two forgeries for Scott 4-6 do not have a joined KA.

See below....


1919 Scott 4 1r red brown, Tyler type two forgery, Tyler Type one forgery

(Aside- Note the extension of the vertical right outer frame line above the upper horizontal frame line (Right upper corner) of the Tyler type one forgery? Tyler states the type one forgeries always show this sign for the type one forgery ruble values. I checked my stamps, and it appears so, although sometimes the extension is blunted/difficult to see.)

Genuine-KA joined
Tyler type two forgery- KA not joined
Tyler type one forgery-KA joined

So far, so good.

But this "KA" rule breaks down when discussing the "British Occupation" overprinted "Aloe tree" stamps! Look at the initial post by danko, and his overprinted genuine Scott 17 2r salmon pink does not have the KA joined. In fact, when I reviewed all the Scott 13-20 overprinted illustrated examples in Ceresa (1993), 34 had joined KA's while 18 did not!

Summary: Tyler's "KA" rule is good (with an exception or two) for the Scott 1-6 plain issue, but cannot be extended to the overprinted values.

I hope this clarifies a bit Tyler's Batum pages. His discussion is basically valid (as one would expect from a careful and respected author as himself), but the "KA" rule is too inconstant to be used for genuine overprinted copies.

Fortunately, the Forged overprints give themselves away with their characteristic signs, so the "KA" sign is not needed anyway.

As mentioned earlier, I will blog publish a much more complete discussion about these fascinating forgeries in November.

Hi Jkjblue,

Does your Ceresa reference provide any details of the different transfer types?

The Barefoot Georgia catalogue notes there were four types of the first issue and six of the second (the new values and colours).

It's interesting that Barefoot makes no mention that I can see of this "KA" issue although it lists a number of tests for distinguishing the originals from the different forgeries of both issues.

Hi nigelc




Yes the Ceresa shows all the examples of the four transfer subtypes for the 1919 plain issue, and the six transfer subtypes for the overprinted 1919 and 1920 issues. He shows and lists the identifying marks for each subtype.

(1993, R.J. Ceresa's "The Postage Stamps of Russia 1917-23, Volume 4. Transcaucasia, Parts 13-16,Section A and Section B, British Occupation of Batum")



1919 Scott 2 (SG 2) 10k ultramarine block of four
Transfer subtypes can often be picked up


The advantage of transfer subtypes is they are consistently there-every fourth stamp for the 1919 plain issue will show the same "spot"-, as opposed to idiosyncratic plate flaws or plate wear. (Doesn't mean they will always show up, due to the vagaries of printing.)

So let's look at the 10k ultramarine above to identify the transfer subtypes...

Left upper...Dot below left tree branch, therefore subtype B.

Right upper...Small dot above CK at edge of Name Tablet, therefore subtype A.

Lower Left...Dot at outer edge of left vertical dots of left value tablet, therefore subtype D.

Lower Right....Dot above M, therefore subtype C.

If there is a doubt about a genuine stamp, this is clearly a way to identify.

Ceresa also makes no mention of the "KA" test.

Here is a full page of forgeries----

That's a lovely page Floortrader.
No Pencilled notes pointing to forgeries?

Rod222

Floortrader would have to have an arrow pointing to the entire page. ;-)

Essentially they are all Type II forgeries, certainly the plain 1919 issue are.

There might be 1-3 genuines among the others, but the scan is a bit small to tell for sure.

Thanks Floortrader for sharing your Batum collection. :-)

my BATUM collection is twenty pages not just one page of fakes.Im working on Heglioland right now ,maybe in the Fall ,i'll post more scans.There is a stamp auction coming up in two weeks and they have some important FIUME unlisted material,hoping of getting those to added to my FIUME but the bidding going to be high,because its rarely seen.

For those interested in the Batum "Aloe tree" forgeries, my post on these forgeries is now published.

http://bigblue1840-1940.blogspot.co...rgeries.html

Thanks for a very informative article!

Now I have something to do tonight

Jkjblue,


Any chance of getting updates to your Blog via RSS?


regards,

Probably, but I'm not smart enough to figure it out.

You can go to...

http://bigblue1840-1940.blogspot.com/

Scroll down the left column to "Big Blue Followers", and sign up for all posts if you have a Google/Twitter/Yahoo!/AIM/Netlog/Open I.D/ account.

Otherwise, I publish every six days, and an posting alphabetically through the classical era countries. Next up is Iceland, than India, and so forth...

For further information on The Aloe Tree Stamps of Batum, see Journal of the Rossica Society, no. 90/91:

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00020235/00055/81j

Great reading here!