Romania : Detecting Forgeries.

Conker, first stamp: 2 parale seems to be from plate 5 (there are 6 known). It presents two of the characteristics:- a.)down left: point after 2 b.) up right: broken frame near 2

Based on what I see in my catalogue....seems all right.

Cheers, Daniel.
Satu Mare into Forgeries section.
I have taken possession of a different printing of the
1.5 bani newspaper wrapper.
Not sure if forgery, as I have seen one image called "Type 1"
meaning there must be several types.
I'll kick tyres before broadcasting it.

For the record: Hungarian Opts.
https://goscf.com/t/17652

1903
Counterfeit proof of
King Carol 1 and Facade of New Post Office.

Purchased from ebay. Vendor noted forgery
I completely missed it.

ROD222----That doesn't look like a proof but more like a computer generated piece of garbage .

That be it....:(

I recently bought the 3 Cuza stamps (SC# 22, 23, 24) and for the first 2 I used security elements from this forum to find-out if they are genuine or not but for the third one there is one thing that does not look right: the top left value 20, the ending of 2 is not a vertical line. Could I get an opinion if this stamp looks like being an original or not. I am uploading a 600 dpi scan of the stamp. Thank-you.

u,

This is type II, and it seems allright (I`m not an expert, but I`m 95% sure it`s genuine).
Characteristic for Type II: - the medallion does not touch the frame.
I`ll try to upload a picture with the design characteristics, but this stamp presents all main characteristics.
(for example letter `A` from `DOUA` or letter `I` from `DECI` slightly longer etc.)

Thanks Waldmalatz for taking time to asses this stamp. Regarding you mentioning that this stamp is a Type II and because I saw this stamp with the same classification in a different place, could you please tell me according to what catalogue is this? The reason I am asking is that in Michel I saw a brief mention that there are 2 types based on Oval size but nothing more while in Scott Catalogue is mentioned that in Type II the Oval is touching down the frame and the I in DECI is the same size (i.e. not longer) which would mean, in my opinion, that based on Scott Catalogue this one should be a Type I.
Thanks again for your reply

Type II according Romanian stamp catalogues (1974 and 2005 edition) and indeed Type I or 20 pa #24 according Scott (#25 is 20 pa Type II).
Here`s the picture:

For Rod222,
The stamp from your post from 9/4/2012, looks genuine to me, however, is not part of the original Mail Coach set issued in 1903 but is an anniversary issue from Nov.20th, 1932 (SC#428) hence the different value (16 Lei).
The signature "THEVERIN" is the name of the engraver (M. Theverin) who realized the original stamps in Paris in 1901. This signature is on the original stamps too.

As I used before this topic to check some stamps, I will add security elements for the stamps known as "The Queen Weaving" (original name "Tesatoarea" and verbatim translation "The Weaver") issued at March 4/17, 1906 having Scott#B5-B8.
Just like the Mail Coach SC#158-165 stamps, all semi-postal stamps issued in 1906 (SC#B1-B12) were heavily forged in Brussels. Fortunately they can be easily identified as long as you know where to look.
Genuine:


Forgery:


I numbered security elements starting with the easiest ones to be checked.
Comparison:


Additional comments:
3. The ornaments on left/right sides are clear on genuine and behind them you may see the background horizontal lines
5. The motto starts with "Viitorul" (The Future) in cursive writing which in forgeries looks like 2 words.
There are other differences like "Romania-Posta" and "Timbru de Binefacere" are taller in original but would be hard to see this unless you have a genuine stamp. Also the signature from motto "Elisaveta" differs (watch letters s, a and t): in forgeries "s" looks like n or m, "a" is bigger and the horizontal line from "t" is smaller. Also Queen's right hand differs in forgeries and left hand is missing completely.

Another heavily forged Romanian stamps are "Queen as War Nurse" issued on Mar.10/23, 1906 (SC#B9-B12). The original set's name is "Mama Ranitilor" verbatim translated "Injureds' Mother". These were also forged in Brussels. If you look on ebay you will easily notice that almost half of the offers contain at least one forged such stamp.
Genuine stamp:


Forged stamp:


Differences:


Details:
1. In case of Brussels forgeries, the most obvious is that TI in "TIMBRU" are shorter than the other characters.
2. The line on top of "A" from "POSTA" is longer to the right in forgeries.
3. Queen's face is different (see Her mouth) and the injured soldier is looking more to the left in forged stamps.
5. The loop in E from "Elisaveta" signature is shorter in forged stamp.
I also noticed on all forged stamps offered on ebay which had the back scanned, that in forgeries case you can see the ink on the back of the stamp.
It is also said that the forged stamps have more pale colors, but you can find genuine stamps with pale colors due to how they were stored I suppose.

"Carol [with beard] in round [medallion]" consists of 3 sets: Oct.1/13, 1872 Paris Print (SC#53-59), 1876-1879 Bucharest 1st [Rough] Print (SC#60-65) and 1879-1880 Bucharest 2nd Print (SC#66-72). In fact Bucharest 1st Print is further split in 2 other prints with minor differences in design. The security elements presented for SC#71, especially those for the effigy should apply to all 3 sets.
Genuine


Forgery


Comparison


1. In forgeries, under the beard there is a thick white line which does not exist in genuine stamps
2. In some corners' squares, the centered white dot is missing at forgeries
3. The Greek border, especially on bottom left is thinner and also the vertical lines in forged stamps
4. Ear and hair are poorly reproduced in forgeries. Ear, consists of 2 thick curved lines and hair drawn with lines having the same width.
5. Same remark about hair from 4. applies to beard.
One other difference is between the texts. For instance R from Romania looks different and generally speaking characters are not as precise looking as in genuine stamps. One other difference in pictured forgery is the outer border which is interrupted in bottom corners, this doesn't happen in genuine stamps.

Resurrecting an old thread here:
Been doing some sorting of Romania and ran across these 3 Moldavia stamps. Anyone have any thoughts on the authenticity?
I have them as Scott 16, 20 & 21 (I think), but are they genuine?