Guam Guard Mail Discovery - Largest Known Blocks Of M1 With Plate Numbers

I noticed that the first G in Guam, the serf is straight in the genuine one and slanted in the fake. But it is also slanted in the block of 9 you show . so which way was it offered?

It would be interesting to know who actually examined this stamp back in 1976.

Also who owned it when Siegel sold it.

This M1 plate block of 9 was also sold by Siegel in sale 705 lot #138 on Tuesday, January 31, 1989. All the lots in this sale were owned by Leonard Diamond. This was the description:

138 2c Green(M1). Mint L. Pl. no. 108682 Block of Nine, centered to T.L., perfs close to slightly in, Very Importtant First Issue Guam Guard Mail Rarity, with P.F. Certificate. Illustrated & Described in Vol. XLV of the U.S. Specialist as the Largest Known First Issue & the Discovery Plate Block (pp. 212&213)

The article in the U.S. Specialist mentioned above in Volume: 45 Number: 5 Year: 1974 Specialist: 531 pages 212 - 213. It is available electronically on the United States Stamps Society website: https://www.usstamps.org/. You must be a member and log on to view it.



M1 plate 108682 Left




It would, but you really can't fault them for saying it was authentic since the correct type set was used and they simply didn't have all the necessary information.




It was Siegel Sale 969 — The Whitpain Collection of U.S. Possessions Sale Date — Thursday-Friday, 12-13 February, 2009. Here's the listing:https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...969-lot-1105

This is an example of the presentation wrapper sent out to the postmasters of the Guam Guard Mail post offices with examples of the 2 and 4 centavos stamps.



These are examples from my exhibit of the first issue of Guam Guam Mail (M1 & M2) on cover.

Good stuff!

There is an over print shift on the first block you posted...

STAMP 4


STAMP 8


Robert

Good catch! I hadn't noticed. Remember the type was most lightly hand set. So the differences in position aren't really a surprise. On the plate block of 35 the stamps in positions 71 - 73 are the same way. Also, noticed that the overprints are in different heights on the stamp. For example compare positions 40 - 45 (the row with the plate number) and 50 - 55 (the one below it).

Here's a couple of other items of ephemera pertaining to the first issue.




This is monthly magazine put out on the island of Guam at the time. The April 1930 issue has the announcement of the establishment of Guam Guard Mail, but it was called 'Guam Postal Service' initially. The post office objected to the use of the word 'postal' so the name of the service was changed to 'Guam Guard Mail'. You can see this in the cancels as the word 'postal' was removed, leaving 'GUAM SERVICE'.

This is the first day cancel of M4.

This one I saw on e bay. It has a numeral 1 in the place on the I.

You have pretty good eyes! It certainly does look like a '1', but since we don't have an example of a '1' in this type set it hard to tell. Its possible that the type could've been damaged as some point too to make it look like a '1'. I looked through all my M1s and M2s and couldn't find one like it. Too bad we can tell its position in the sheet.

Here's something interesting I ran across a while back.



Looks like the type got broken at some point.

The font types on M1 & M2;are there any references on the name of the font type?It is quiet
unusual that "M" has two different fonts in the same setting;(never seen in other countries).The fonts were made in the USA?; or were they brought in from the Philippines?
The letter "G","R" & "M" in particular stand out.
The 'Forgery types' shown before mean that the forged overprinted sheets were overprinted with a similar font;but not exactly the same..Why is that?
A font type has to have a 'name';as all type setters know.

(In the Naval Station Document [above] of 1930; the fonts are not the same as in the overprint.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The only font that looks about the same that I could find for the moment is this one from a San Francisco newspaper (early 20th century).The "R","U" & "G" are quiet distinctive.
Font sizes are measured in points (letters per inch).
In the same newspaper, different font types were used of slightly different styles;so it is not always obvious.___ I would think the fonts used for the overprint are from an old
type of design.




If you can; measure the overprint to obtain the correct point reference.(below).
https://www.gloverstamp.com/font-details
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Found this add in the "Guam Recorder " of 1925. look like the same fonts second line.
Could it be the "Guam Press" that overprinted the stamps ?

This is taken from the The Congress Book 1970 issued at the 36th American Philatelic Congress October 23-25, 1970 in Chicago. The paper was called 'The Guam Guard Mail of 1930' by Lawrence S. Clark. On page 153 it states:

FIRST ISSUE

Issued April 8, 1930; exhausted before July 9, 1930

Philippine stamps number 290b and 291, unwatermarked, perforated 11,
overprinted, "GUAM GUARD MAIL" in 2mm. fancy capitals in black ink.
Overprint 11½ x 8mm. Sheets of 100.

M1 2-centavos (1 cent) green 2,000. Plate number not known.
M2 4-centavos (2 cent) carmine 3,000. Plate number 44876.



I think the 'M' in 'MAIL' is an inverted 'W' or maybe the 'M' in GUAM is an inverted 'W'.




It's possible that the forgers simply couldn't get hold of them at the time. I have seen other forgeries done more recently that are really bad and are easily distinguishable.




I think 'fancy capitals' is the name of the font (see above). I noticed that in the description of the 3rd and 4th issues it says 'roman capitals' in black ink and 'roman capitals' in red ink respectively. This is an official envelope and it looks to me that it has the same font as do the overprints on M1 & M2.






The overprinting was done at the Federal Works Print Shop in Agana.




Yes, I think the fonts are same.

For information on the second Guam Guard Mail issue please look here: http://goscf.com/t/69668.