Help With France Overprint Fra.

Came across some French stamps that appear to have a diagonal overprint "Fra.". I searched for quite some time and can't find any mention of this overprint.

Thoughts?

Given the disparity of time periods, I'm inclined to think someone having fun with a printing set!

Under magnification, you may well be able to determine whether the "overprint" is over, or under, the cancels. You might be able to see it with the naked eye, but magnification often gives a 3D, "floating" appearance that makes it easy to tell.

Yeah, I put them under microscope. It does appear the overprint is on top of the postmark.

That would be completely expected...

ETA: Congratulations on solving the mystery. You might consider putting them in a glassine and writing "fake" on the outside to save the next person some time?

(I would probably put a small "f" on the backs of each of them, if they were mine, but I'm not going to tell someone else to do that with their items.)

Good choice of the word 'appear'.
It may be possible with stamp in hand but it is very, very difficult to determine if both the cancel and overprint are close to the same color.

Please also note that that it is virtually impossible to tell if one is on top of the other from an image. It has previously been shown in another thread here where everyone agreed that on some places an overprint clearly appeared on top of a cancel and in another place on the same stamp it clearly appeared to be underneath the cancel.

Bitmapped images are 2D, they have no way to reflect depth (Z axis information); this makes it a guess at any depth opinion. Folks can learn more using numerous online resources to better understand how digital images are generated and displayed.
Don

cjd : I believe I have identified (at least...) two fakes within my Canadian definitives. Is it a common or recommended practice to put "f" or even "fake" behind such stamps ?

Good stewardship dictates to not write anything on the backs of stamps. I would extend this to virtual every stamps (examples exists opinions on forgeries that change over time as more is learned). In my opinion the one exception would be modern home printed fakes/forgeries which would best be marked.
Don

Alie: It's an old-fashioned practice. Expertizers used to mark stamps in various ways. As you might know, the Germans, especially, had an elaborate system of marking, and not just fakes. Good cancel, bad cancel, good overprint, bad overprint, etc.

Now, marking a genuine stamp is no longer necessary because technology lets someone easily issue a certificate with a clear depiction of the stamp (and, a genuine stamp is highly unlikely to harm a buyer). A bad stamp is easily separated from a "truth-telling" certificate, so an unmarked fake can live to blight another day.

I use a piece of moveable type - a small, italic "f" - to mark something that I know is bad. If I don't know it's bad, I don't mark it. I use an "f" because that covers fake, forgery, falsch, and faux, at least. Again, it's a nod to an old-fashioned practice.

I would never tell someone to mark their own item. That's up to each person. (I would also never tell someone not to mark their own known fake, because that only benefits a future fraudster. I'd just recommend being relatively sure.)

My 2d.

Thanks for the explanation. I did not know about the elaborate German markings.

I have sorted thousands of stamps in my lifetime and I did notice many marking behind stamps, usually Scott, SG, Michel, Y&T numbers, sometimes values but never "f". That's why I didn't know about this.

More than you ever wanted to read about the marks on the backs of stamps:

https://www.filatelia.fi/experts/index.html

That page links to this diagram explaining positions of expertizing marks used by German expertizers:



It might not be useful, but you can't say it isn't interesting.

As far as I know, the practice of marking expertised stamps is still used in mainland Europe. I'll occasionally make pencil marks on used stamps - usually perforation measurements or watermark references.

I have never encountered expertising marks from Dutch expertisers on Dutch stamps.
I am aware of the expertising marks used by BPP (German expertisers). But I wonder whether they still do this. I have Irish stamps that bear the mark of Roy Hamilton-Bowen. I am not quite sure whether he applied them long ago and bought back the stamps, or applied them recently (as I bought the stamps from him). One also bears the mark from a second dealer.

Annotations - in pencil - on the back of mint stamps I have encountered from British dealers. I do not like that practice. I am not convinced putting an eraser to the gum is doing much for the gum.

Other marks may be owner marks. Several well-known collectors used owner marks. I am not very keen on those, but when the previous owner is an interesting name, it may even add value.

My rule of thumb is to avoid anything that is not or hardly reversible. That's why I don't mark stamps, hinge them, or separate them from other stamps or tabs.
And on a personal level - no piercings or tattoos.

On a 'personal property' level I support people doing anything they want with their stamps. Light a cigar with your rare stamp if you want.

But from the standpoint of good stewardship and realizing that thousands of less experienced hobbyists read these forums, folks should not be making any marks on the back of their stamps. We are only temporary owners of this material and I cannot ever recall anyone ever saying, 'gee, I am glad that someone marked the back of this stamp'.

And given that 'expert' marks are often faked, I would question a marked stamp carrying a premium for any experts mark on them.
Don

A fairly recent example -