Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

How Are You Identifying The NYassa 1921 Lisbon Vs. London Surcharges?

 
Previous Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1634 Posts
Posted 07/31/2019   11:40 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add hy-brasil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
But nobody has shown a Lisbon Printing

Of which value? And which eBay item?
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 08/04/2019   1:13 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add HoosRec to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I'm still working on scans of 22 unused copies. Still need to pair up and make enlarged closeups.

Tom
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 08/06/2019   11:57 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add HoosRec to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I wanted to make these images of the surcharges large enough to be easily analyzed. However, because of SCF's image size limitations, I decided to separate them into multiple files. All stamps were scanned together on a single sheet and then separated. So, there are no differences in the images associated with the scanning. I have not organized the stamps in any way other than to present these from lowest to highest surcharge value. Except for three copies of the ¼c surcharge, the 22 stamps presented here are all that I own. I have not yet made an effort to distinguish between the London and Lisbon surcharges, although I suspect the vast majority of these are London surcharges.

The three stamps represented in my original scan are included again in this set of images. I am looking forward to your reactions to these additional examples. Thanks!

Tom











Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1634 Posts
Posted 08/07/2019   03:50 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add hy-brasil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Tom, per Y&T, these are all London prints. We see variations in inking and worn type that make identification by "Centavos/Centavo" a problem. So I think we have to stick to separating them by the figures of value more than anything else when we can.

• Keep in mind that the images from Y&T are drawings; hopefully Mundiphil has more useful images. So that means the figures "2" and "0" (for example) should be the same within (say) the London printing, more similar than the Y&T drawings look. Y&T renderings of "Centavos" are quite fanciful.
• Just from checking online recently, the Lisbon prints seem to be much scarcer than what Scott et al seem to think, unless maybe some of us ran out and bought them all. But my recollection is that collections usually had the exact same surcharge figures of value on both pages, which Y&T shows is not true. Plus the few recent Lisbon sets being offered have been London sets, probably just lifted directly from albums that had them in those spaces.
• My idea about the capital "C" is completely wrong. Ignore that.
• Rather than rely on a variable impression of the top of the "a", the London print appears to have a more flattened, angled oval opening, the Lisbon much rounder. However, with heavier inking and heavier impressions, the Londons can appear round, as in Tom's first 1-1/2c and second 3c. So again, "Centavos" is not always useful.
• The "2"s are consistent within each print. The Londons have an upright lower neck and have a more pronounced curve to the foot, even in the "1/2" character.
• The "0"s are very close but I think I see that the right inside is nearly straight in the London print, especially when comparing to its left inside.
• Per floortrader, we really need to see other Lisbon prints. Got any suspects you can show us?
• Does anyone have a used or cancelled stamp from either set to show? With all the shenanigans that went on with Nyassa stamps http://www.philatelicdatabase.com/a...e-1898-1911/ and the 1922 reprints noted by Steve, I'm beginning to suspect that the London print was purely philatelic. Maybe both are.

Thanks once again to Climber Steve. I'm off in search of the Davies book.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by hy-brasil - 08/07/2019 03:52 am
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 08/08/2019   07:41 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add HoosRec to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
In deference to any possible intellectual property holders, I wasn't intending to publish this image when I started this discussion. However, in light of John's post of the 1925 Yvert and Tellier catalog image and his mention of their reversal of the overprint types compared to Scott, I decided that presenting this here for comparison might help avoid any confusion.



I created this image by combining and rearranging the original two images presented in the linked document in my initial post.

Tom
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
4355 Posts
Posted 08/08/2019   12:24 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add floortrader to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks for that layout ,I captured it for future reference .I have a few full sets but they are all London prints .
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1634 Posts
Posted 08/08/2019   10:24 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add hy-brasil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Still confused here. Nothing new there.

I think both of Tom's sets are drawings (again). The "2"s are not that distinct from each other except for the upright lower neck on the London prints. In the right set, the "5"s are definitely the wrong print, and I think the "10"s are too; see my scans of the 10 and 20 centavos.

The right side set of images don't appear to be scaled to the same size against each other, no matter the print.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 08/09/2019   06:33 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add HoosRec to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I'm with hy-brasil—confused. We don't have a good, reliable set of images of the surcharges to work with. The surcharge graphic I created from the two images in the link presented in my original post appears to be from a 2nd or third generation copy. It was nice that it included images from two different sources. However, for some reason, part of it was mis-sized. I adjusted that so the sizes were all relatively close. Not ideal, but better than what I started with.

I agree with hy-brasil regarding the "2" numeral, but would add the apparent difference in the tails between the London and Lisbon surcharges.

The various examples of the numeral "2" in John's Y & T surcharge page seem to be inconsistent. The design differences between the London and Lisbon examples for the "2" in the 2½c, 12c and 20c surcharges are consistent, but those design differences are reversed for the 2c examples. That inconsistency of the 2c designs doesn't seem to exist in the examples presented in my image of the surcharges. A possible error in their presentation or me misreading it?

Comparing the "2" in my 2c, 2½c, 12c and 20c examples presented above (and ignoring other surcharge variables), the "2" on my two copies of the 12c appear to be distinct and more like the London examples. My 2c, 2½c and 20c appear to match the Lisbon examples.

Tom
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 08/11/2019   5:45 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add HoosRec to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Expanding on my previous comments about the numeral 2 in the London and Lisbon surcharges, I created some images to take a closer look at the differences.

My first image here is a side-by-side view of the 2c, 12, and 20c examples I used in the comparisons presented in the second and third images below. The base image in those two images is the same one I posted a few days ago. It shows the close-ups of my two copies of the 2c on 20r surcharges.

The green numerals are from the 12c and 20c surcharges. I copied and then overlaid them on both of the 2c examples in each of the identical base images. The "bottom 12c" label refers to the bottom example of the two 12c examples I posted a few days ago. The "top 20c" label refers to the top example of the two 20c examples I posted. The first image shows the 12c example overlaid directly on both 2c numeral 2s. The second images shows the 20c overlaid directly on both numeral 2s.

Please note that the green numeral 2 overlay from the 12c example was produced by using a selection tool in Photoshop. For the 20c example, I couldn't get a good selection with any Photoshop tool and resorted to creating a freehand overlay in Photoshop. The results of that freehand work is also shown in the fourth image, with the original on the left and my freehand work overlaid on the right. Not perfect, but close.

I think both of my 2c examples are a good match for the Lisbon surcharge drawings. Both of my 12c examples appear to match the London surcharge drawings. Both of my 20c examples seem to match one another, but appear to lie somewhere between the London and Lisbon examples. Both of these 20c examples have a sharper curve and more vertical aspect to the lower neck like the London surcharges, but not to the extent my 12c examples show. The latter are not only vertical, but turn back under the numeral. I am inclined to think the numeral 2s on my two 20c examples are a closer match to the London drawings, but that ignores all other aspects of the two surcharge groups.

Tom




Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1634 Posts
Posted 08/19/2019   02:06 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add hy-brasil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
It looks like unique "2" figures of value were used for the 12c London and the 20c Lisbon, for example.

The "2" in the 12c London vs. the "2" in 2c London:

(L to R) One of Tom's 12c images; two 12c images found; Tom's 2c image (bottom). The curve is much sharper in the foot of the "2" of the 12c vs. the 2c stamp. The second image looks different from all but I feel it is just heavily inked -- the left side of the foot remains distinctive and still matches the other 12c. So then perhaps a different typeface was used for the "2" of the London 12c. If whatever font used was an uncommon one, that might have been necessary.

I still also feel that Tom's 2c are both London prints:

The third from left (originally bottom) "2" is just more heavily inked than the other as additionally evidenced by the blob on top of foot, heavier thin part of the numeral and heavier "Centavos" than Tom's top example.

I suspect the two leftmost images are Lisbon prints further supported by "Centavos" having finer thin lines overall in the characters. Compare with Tom's larger examples. Admittedly, there are London print "Centavos" that can look similar but seem to have a few but not all characters having finer thin lines.

The 5c values:

The left image is I believe the Lisbon print. It does not match the Y&T image exactly, but neither does the Y&T fit the 5c London, which as Tom's examples clearly show, has a slight upturn on the flag (upper right). Still, I have seen London 5c values with a blunted flag due to either underinking or damage. The form of the "5" can be hard to see because of the placement of the "5" against the zebra stripes. Again, except for the "s", the Lisbon print has finer thin lines overall.

Note also the "1" in the figure of value are mostly thinner for the Lisbon prints but not all of them are. So perhaps like the "2" of the 12c London, and the "2" of the 20c Lisbon print, numerals from other typefaces were used in other values or prints.

---

With just a few examples of Lisbon prints now found, I think the finer lines in "Centavos" that Scott and others talk about are more noticeable. Based on that, the 10c I thought was a Lisbon print is actually a London print.

The upshot is that we need to find more Lisbon prints including more examples of what we've already shown.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 08/21/2019   4:35 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add HoosRec to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks for your additional comments hy-brasil. I'll have to review them in detail later. You're right about needing more examples!

Tom
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
117 Posts
Posted 08/21/2019   10:55 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add EMaxim to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Speaking as a relative novice here, one with only a few examples of his own, I find several of Hy-brasil's comments the most useful. In particular, that Lisbon prints have, in general, finer, thinner lines in the characters, to which I'd add SC's observation that, in the London printing, individual characters are generally of more even thickness. Still, as Hy-brasil also says, variations in the amount of ink applied, along with wear and tear on type, complicate (perhaps excessively) every aspect of the effort to distinguish the printings.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
117 Posts
Posted 08/23/2019   12:30 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add EMaxim to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
After reading all that's been written here, I'm confident that my examples are all of the London Printing (the more common), even though some display one or another small detail that SC associates with the Lisbon Printing (e.g., the end of the crossbar of the "t" turns slightly downward at the right). I base my conclusion on the overall appearance of the characters: heavier and generally of even thickness. Within both printings there appear to be innumerable variants, but they're small and may be attributed to inconsistent inking, the wearing down of typeface, or slight variations in letter styles within a typeface (as hy-brasil has noted). Pursuing these under increased magnification risks, I'm afraid, ending in confusion and discouragement. I am, however, no expert and hope someday to see the photos published in the Mundifil Catalogue that Climber Steve has mentioned. If they compel me to revise my thinking about these Nyassa overprints, I'll do so gladly.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2019 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2019 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.92 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05