The Stamps Of Turkey / Turkiye: On Steiner Pages.

Join the queue myself included.

Yes, I have seen both,
I'll dig out Birkin catalogue, and see what he has to say.

Nice link you offered.

Why do we know nothing about these stamps?

For me, their price precludes me from collecting them,
if one cannot study stamps in the flesh, all we can do is read
information and speculate.
Why study something one cannot collect?
That's why I avoid them.


To answer your question, whom knows?
even the experts can disagree, it looks like to me it can be anything
secret mark as a dot
secret mark as a line
secret mark missing altogether

All appear genuine, depending on the print and its position on the lithographic stone.

Birkin Birken lifts. (Oops typo)

5 Piastre 1st Printing

@rod222



I know (Andreas) Birken but who is Birkin?

Maybe the Burak catalog?

I may get back to those early issues, but now I try to move forward.

Scott 8, Michel 5

Any opinion if these are genuine or fake?

Sc8 Mi5 A




Sc8 Mi5 B

Opinion.
Referred to as the Dulos Issues
10 para, Type 1 letterpress Opt
A looks Ok to me, perforations aside, these always look strange to me,
but appears common on my examples.

B
Wow! not seen this before, a strange one indeed.
I would ascribe a forgery, with limited knowledge.
May I keep this scan for my records please?
The bottom script is the denomination
Cannot be Scott 8 as it looks like a 1 piastre.
A keeper.

Further reading
http://stampforgeries.com/forged-st...oman-empire/

Yes, the first one is fine, but in a weird perf, the second a crude forgery pretending to be the same. Here is mine:

Steiner Page 001
...and drilling down.
Click images to expand.

Thank you very much. I was thinking that the second one looked fishy. Now I can be sure about that.

What is it about perforation of the first one that you feel strange? Is it the size of holes?

Partly, yes, but understandable, early days of production, they come in all sorts of perforating pin diameters.
Wait until you get to the 1870-1871 set, perf 5-11, and maybe sewing machine perfs. (pin perfs)

I have not read any literature thus far on perforating discussions.

Next is Scott 9, Michel 6

Any opinions on these?


Sc9 Mi6 A




Sc9 Mi6 B




Sc9 Mi6 C




Sc9 Mi6 D

A is a cracker, lovely stamp.
a keeper

B is OK, sporting a Syrian Postmark DAMASCUS 1865-1871
Coles and Walker Volume 2 page 28, code AR3 Cat#31
A3 = triple lined R = rectangular
B = Blue Ink
Rarity scale 1 = common.

Nigelc may wish to check, as I say in ad nauseum, I am only a student.

C and D look OK

Thank you again. Comments from Nigelc or anyone else are welcome.

Rod222, I appreciate your effort, even if you consider yourself as a student. At least that means you have passed the entrance exam . I guess that makes me to be studying for entrance exam.

Nice to know that all 4 look like genuine. Also, thank you for IDing the Damascus postmark.

Next is Scott 10, Michel 7. Any opinions on them?


Sc10 Mi7 A




Sc10 Mi7 B

Time for you to do some work also.
Provide guaging of each stamp shown please.

A
I do not have this stamp, lovely item, a tad off centre.
Unlisted in Scott
With my usual caveats
I make it Isfila # 25 RV1 Red-Mauve (First time I have seen it)
Dulos Star and Crescent type 1
Perf 12.5

Suggestion: slight tear on lower left (or bent tooth)
It appears to have been printed on creased paper, or is it your HAGNER

Single Mint stamp in Turkish Lira 150
1 Euro = 3.30 Turkish Liras
Note : 2016 prices, the Turkish Lira is currently crashing.


B
I don't like this stamp, the pearls are dodgy, but the Opt is genuine
probably worn die, or dodgy ink.
Lower currency values are horrible.
Passable unless proven forgery, which I doubt.
Check perf 12.5

Be aware, if you have a bent tooth , and the paper is brittle,
if you attempt to bend it back, they generally fall off. ( instant damaged stamp)
Best to leave as is, or very carefully wet the tooth leave for 20 mins , then bend back.