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?

This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.
Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

New Reunion Collection Questions

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 2 / Views: 441Next Topic  
Valued Member
United States
46 Posts
Posted 01/15/2023   04:43 am  Show Profile Bookmark this topic Add Itsjustme7711 to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
I recently bought a collection and found these Reunion stamps within.
1. Appears to be a #1. Legit, reprint, copier creativity, or forgery?
2. Same question for same image on larger square of paper (note ink and paper colorations.)
3. Appears to be a #32 except Scott's doesn't have this spelling variation on the overprint listed. It is very lightly hinged. An I overlooking Scott's number or...?
Any help much appreciated!



Send note to Staff

Pillar Of The Community
United Kingdom
7146 Posts
Posted 01/15/2023   06:20 am  Show Profile Check GeoffHa's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add GeoffHa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
3157 Posts
Posted 01/16/2023   6:46 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add hy-brasil to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
The first and second images show forgeries.
the crescent shapes in the corners are wrong/badly done.
there should be two short dashes between "Timbre" and Poste"
the "1" of "15" should be a short capital "I" with serifs; the "5" is wrong
the outer frameline of the original is actually two thin lines closely spaced. That's not what Scott says. The reprint has one thick outer frameline. #2 looks like a badly done copy of a reprint.
the original and reprint are typographed. #2 and #3 don't appear to be so. If you put a magnifier on each and see unsharp edges to all printed areas and a haze of minute dots around them, they have been done on a computer printer.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
  Previous TopicReplies: 2 / Views: 441Next Topic  
 
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 - 2023 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 - 2023 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.16 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05