Please Help In Identifying Stamps - Armenia, 1922

Please help in identifying stamps , the year of issue and issuer or country or anything about it.
I have no idea what is this

Armenia, 1922. Only postally valid with surcharge - these are from stamps left with the printer or are reprints.

I like the bottom stamp's design. It shows a view of the ruins of the city of Ani from inside a cave.

Cool

Hy Brazil

There are lots of forgeries of this issue. The 25r is a forgery, the 5 is genuine.

The 25r is a heavy, rather muddy print, typical of the forgeries. Despite that, the shading lines on the cheek of the harpy (harpy's right, stamp's left side) are not there as they should be on a genuine. More on that later.

The 5r forgery has a break over the left 5 (this does not, so genuine), and there is no extension of the frame line in the lower left corner as the genuine has here.

The forgeries are technically unauthorized reprints done by Essayan Printing Works who printed the genuine issue (!). So they are fairly close to the originals. The entire genuine sheets were apparently photographed (per John Barefoot),so there was some loss in details, so the forgeries were often retouched and differences can be found. There are ones that I suspect are still later and done by others after Essayan.

Genuine color trials exist, imperf and sometimes gummed.

Genuine stamps have clear impressions as do many of the forgeries. But if the print is murky/overinked, it is a forgery. Both originals and forgeries come in a range of color/shades. Barefoot gives colors/shades but with confusion of what a color name is to an individual, I've left it out. There's enough overlap in shades (to me) that color is secondary to proper identification.

The genuine are imperf or perf 11-1/2 but so are the forgeries. Perfed stamps on very soft white paper (fibers showing) with rough perfs are forgeries.

Ashford and Tchilinghirian (A&T) and Barefoot describes the original paper as thin toned with yellowish gum, while the Essayan forgeries are on whiter crisper paper with a less distinct mesh, with greenish gum. However, ageing makes it hard to tell the difference.

Knowing the basic stamp helps identify forgeries of the later surcharged issues. The surcharge can be faked, too, but identifying the underlying stamp as genuine or not is often missed.

THE SECTION BELOW HAS BEEN REVISED:
So, on to the 1 ruble value, with some images following courtesy of rod222:

Genuine. The bellflower at upper right has a deep cut in the upper part and a wavy edge in the lower part (per A&T). There is shading in the almond shaped ornaments in the bottom corner (per Barefoot).

Forgery for comparison.

2 ruble:
[no image yet]
Genuine. There is an extension to the frameline at lower left (A&T). The space between the raised knee and body is a Y whereas I would say it was almost all body outline with little space between (Barefoot). The left knee (to me) is quite square. The knee touches the frameline.

Forgery. The knee/body space is a V, more open (Barefoot). He also notes a clear frame break at upper left affecting the loop, which isn't on this forgery. I see a more rounded left knee, typically and the right knee does not touch the frameline.

On the fence here. The color is in the right range and has Barefoot characteristics but does not have the frameline extension. That is possible on genuine stamps as plate wear would eventually erase them. The deciding factor would be paper and gum, which is unknown here.

To be continued.

Genuine. Extension of frameline at lower left (A&T). As mentioned above, they sometimes disappear or get reduced as printing progressed. These lines are called "secret marks" by A&T and other students. I don't see the rounded upper right corner per Barefoot.

Genuine. Extension of frameline at lower left (A&T). This is rod's copy, different from the OP's example but it is a later printing with more plate wear.

Genuine. Extension of frameline at lower left (A&T). There is shading on the cheeks (Barefoot), hardly visible:



Forgery. No frameline extension, no shading on harpy's right cheek. Also, a heavy, murky print typical of many forgeries.

Genuine. The soldier's helmet has a clear bill in the shape of a shallow U. There are a few tiny lines of shading in the crook of the bayonet holder/attachment between rifle and bayonet (A&T). Additionally, the clouds in the sky are sharply defined, which is typical of the genuine stamps in this issue.

Forgery. Apologies for the imperfect image. There is a very small white flaw inside the frame in the shape of a sock (Barefoot) perhaps more like an ice hockey stick. No shading in the crook of the bayonet holder which is less well-defined than in the original. The clouds are less defined, particularly at the left.


Genuine. There are extensions to the bottom framelines at lower right, though found worn away often enough (A&T, Barefoot). The columns have round caps (A&T).

Forgery. No round caps on columns. The brow/eyelash connects to a line defining the cheek in the genuine, but is just a dot (Barefoot). However, I note some forgeries show without round column caps have extensions and do have a brow/eyelash as shown here, just not the full eye and brow and cheek lines.

To be continued.

You are doing a bang up job, HB,
shall be the "go-to" thread for Armenian ID.
Thanks for your time, and efforts.
If you need any close ups, just holler.

rod, if I can get close ups of the 2000r and 10000r, perf and imperf, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

It was nice to put my hinging regime to the test.
Approx 2 years since the El Cheapo "Prinz" hinges were applied, ($5 / 1000)
Stamps remained in place, but fell off with slight pressure from tongs at removal.
It's all in the limited moisture one applies.
(Albeit, they do not peel with that fabulous feel of the Dennison)

Thanks again, rod. Back in a few days with this while I research the two values above.

250 ruble

Genuine. The leaf at lower left crosses the inner frameline. The right crane's head touches the top frameline (A&T).

Forgery. The leaf does not cross the inner frameline. Right crane's head does not touch the top frameline (A&T). No dot between jaws of birds (Barefoot), actually much fewer dots between the open beaks.


500 ruble

Genuine. There is an extension of the frameline at lower left (A&T). There is also a spot on the cow's hip made up of shading lines shaped like a reverse "R".

Forgery. No extension of frameline (A&T). The spot on the cow's hip has fused into a blob vaguely shaped like a heart. Blob or dot on top twist of rope frame at left.

Forgery. Similar to above but the lower right rope knot is deformed (Barefoot). This is more due to the muddy printing typical of some forgeries.


1000 ruble

Genuine. There is an extension to the frameline at lower left (A&T). Also, this is a fairly early printing showing sharp and fine detail.

Forgery. No extension to the frameline (A&T). The top flag/serif on the "1" of "1000" is nearly gone (Barefoot). The blobs along the left frameline occur only on some forgeries.



2000 ruble
Genuine. A&T apparently could find no constant identifiers. There is a dot/blob in the loop of the bottom right ribbon twist missing from most forgeries (Barefoot). But here we have rod's imperf example which is undoubtedly an early printing due to its fineness of line and detail and therefore genuine. No forgeries are like this.

This does have a frame extension but this is not be a consistent feature. Note there is an open corner at lower left, a normal feature of some positions of the genuine and of other genuine values as well. Note the shape of the ornament in the lower left between the ribbons. Also note the shading of Mt. Ararat that follows the shape of the shoulder of the mountain. So as always, compare with the paper and gum of other genuine stamps to be sure.

Genuine detail. The ribbon twist loop is a diamond shape. This may have worn into a slightly more rounded shape in later printings.

Forgery. "Loop is incomplete" (Barefoot), meaning no diamond shape in the lower left ribbon loop. The ornament mentioned above is a different shape from the genuine. Shading on Mt. Ararat is fairly strong but is different from the genuine.

Forgery. A dangerous forgery in my view where someone knew the genuine characteristics. This is on a soft and very bright white paper. Note that it does have a diamond shape in the ribbon loop though somewhat different. The ornament in the loop is much closer to the genuine though its base is obviously different (broken). The shading on Mt. Ararat is that of the forgery above. The key is the lines and blobs along the right margin here. Originals have marginal scratches and small erasures of the stamp design, but nothing like these. More on this forgery type later.


5000 ruble

Genuine. There is an downward extension of the outer frameline of the left panel containing the ribbon (A&T). Further, this is due to the panel frameline being retouched so that the outer curves of the ribbons have been slightly flattened.

Forgery. No extension and no retouch of of the left panel frameline. Barefoot notes "no crosshatching" in panel, but that is due to a murky print.

To be continued.

rod, both 2000r are yours. Can you provide a scan of the back of the perfed one or can you just tell us if there is even gum on it and its appearance? I haven't been able to buy one of any value yet.

Excellent work HB.

Best I can do with scanner.
Appears very light, thin creamy gum, but which I think is taking on the bistre colour of the stamp when viewed from the reverse.
Ergo, I think it may be thin all over very light gum.

Sc#288 2000 ruble. (Assumed forgery, as above comments...thought the print looked dodgy)

Many thanks, rod! Continuing:

10000 rubles

Genuine. A&T say nothing in the notes I have, Barefoot gives rather vague points. This example is clearly in the color range of genuine stamps ("flesh", per Barefoot) and is probably an earlier to middle printing. If there are any frameline extensions and square corners, it's a sign of a genuine stamp. The left and bottom panels meet in a curve. The decoration second from the bottom of the left panel is a 3-lobed leaf.

The window behind the woman's head is well-formed; the left pane has fairly sharp corners and shaded. There is also a white dot located relatively high on or above her head scarf. All this is noted since plate wear could obscure some of these points. The child's head is badly done as on the forgeries.

Forgery. A bead has been added where the left and bottom panels meet. This may not be true of all forgeries. The 3-lobed leaf in the genuine is now unrecognizable. The panes in the window behind the woman's head are now heavily worn and rounded. The white spot on/above the woman's head scarf is now at the back of her head.

Forgery. Characteristics are those of the forgery above. There are also dots and blobs outside the right frame, a clear sign of photographic copying and a telltale of a forgery for this issue.

Once again, there are margin scratches in the genuine and in fact the frameline extensions are remnants of printer markings used to lay out the stone (plate). Individual genuine stamps will have different markings (if any), but it appears that certain forgeries are only found as only one copied design as they have the same marginal dots and blobs as well as other design characteristics.

15000 rubles

Genuine. There is a small spur in the outside frameline below the fish's "necklace" (A&T, Barefoot). Note the shape of shading at the top of the body of water; this is a Type 2 printing characteristic.

Forgery. No spur (A&T, Barefoot). Barefoot notes a closed curl on fish's "nose" which I think refers to the second curved line making the "nose" look like 2 nostrils. Barefoot also notes the white highlights on the water is a "compromise between Type 1 ... and Type 2". The white highlights are actually large blobs along the top edge of the water on this typical forgery type.

Forgery, soft white paper. No spur. The fish's nose appears correct. The highlights on the water are slightly different from the genuine Type 2. This has the typical dots and blobs outside the framelines for this type forgery.

Probable forgery. This looks to be a very worn example of the very scarce Type 1. Type 1 has the same spur as Type 2. In Type 1, the upper third of the water is white/unshaded. Also, the upper left corner of the sky has dotted lines that appear to be retouching; Type 2 is just white in that area.

The sky corner in this example has a few remnant dots and the water has a little more shading than is visible here. The key frameline spur exists. So, these are correct characteristics for a Type 1. But this is on medium white paper with thin clear dull gum (disturbed), so it is not the genuine stamp.

20000 rubles

Genuine. Frameline extension at upper left (A&T, Barefoot). Further, I note that the ribs of the "feathers" are neatly drawn and well-defined.

Forgery. No frameline extension, though some forgeries might show a trace of an extension. The "feather" ribs are sloppily done.

To be continued.