Papal States - Real Thing Or Reproduction?

I bought a lot of 500 mixed European stamps recently. Among them were six stamps from the Papal States, three damaged, two in so-so condition and one in immaculate condition. They're all rather glossy and have a kind of waxy feel to them, which seems odd.

The particular stamp shown here is the most extreme example of the bunch. It seems to have a plastic coating or something - which would surely be very unusual for the mid-19th century. It also has what seems to me to be very authentic old gum on the reverse, but from the front it's so glossy and brand-new-looking that I'm suspicious. This has to be a reproduction, surely.

Does anyone know whether the Papal States perf issues of 1868 were really like this or whether this is a modern reproduction?

If the latter, hats off to the person who fabricated it for doing such an excellent job emulating old gum!

The reason the gum looks so authentic is because many of the reprints were made in the 19th Century, so they are still well over 100 years old!

If the paper looks in good shape and the design shows all those drop-outs, then it's very likely one of half a dozen known reprints.

The genuine perforated stamps measure an IRREGULAR perf 13.25. Any other perf measurement (and there are MANY different perf measurements among the different reprints) means it is definitely a reprint. Can you measure the perforation? Thank you!

OK, thanks so much for the info khj! This stamp is perf 11.25.

Even as a reprint it's interesting, though. Presumably the glossy finish was meant to emulate the original, so the original stamp must have the same. It's as if they've been lacquered. What material was used to achieve this effect, I wonder?

Hi Jimjamtwo

I have only a few of the Papal States in my collection, or I should say my wife's collection since I gave them to her and, they all have that glossy effect.

Chimo

Bujutsu

It may be a Cohn reprint, but don't hold me to that as I didn't check. Break time is over, back to the grinding stone...

Here's a note I found online:

Reprints:

ATTENTION: most of the centesimi stamps of the Papal States have been reprinted in large quantities. They are very hard to distinguish from original stamps. The only easiest way [sic] to distinguish them seems to exist for perforated stamps (imperforate reprints are very difficult to distinguish from genuine stamps): genuine perforated centesimi stamps should have the perforation 13 1/4 (irregularly). Unofficial reprints were made by:

Usigli (1878) 2, 3, 30, 40 and 80 c (thick paper, colours different and different gum), imperforate or perforated 11 1/2 or 12. He also made essay-strips with all values together on one sheet (thus also creating stamps with background colour different from the genuine stamps), for an example see: 'Philatelic Forgers Their Lives and Works' by Varro E. Tyler, page 53.

Moens (Brussels, 1889): All values, imperforate or perforated 12

Gelli&Tani (Brussels) (Bonasi?): All values, some different colours, perforated 11 1/2 to 13 (very regularly)

David Cohn (1890):All values (with or without gum), shining paper, imperforate or perforated 11 1/2, printed in enormous quantities, these are the most common reprints.

From http://catalogue.klaseboer.com/vol2...l/papal2.htm

Question: why didn't these makers of reprints (forgers?) copy the same perf as the original stamps if they were trying to fool people?

Seems to me they went to a great deal of trouble to make their stamps look almost identical to the originals, but they still made it easy for people to distinguish their work from the originals.

How odd!