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
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