Reconciling DDR A43 Series_ Dated1953 And Following Series

I have full sheets for the series following denominations of 10pf, 20pf,30pf,40pf,50pf and 70pf;1953 series #155-169 was excluded because the 20pf has the wrong illustration, the #189-203pf series was excluded because there is no 50pf in the series, the 227-230 series was excluded because there is no 30pf in the series, #330-338 series was excluded because none of the issues have imprints (not an issue for the 10 and 15pf) so that leaves the #476-482 series, which matches the various denominations exactly. The issue date is also consistent with the postmark on the 10 pf, the only cancellation in the series. Scott's, however, maintains that the sheets were issued in a batch of 60 stamps, (and 40 labels.) I have the complete sheets, altho in quarters of 25, which clearly include 100 stamps. The labels on all 4 quarter-sheets are consistent. I checked with my local dealer, who had no idea about it.
Any ideas?
Art

Clarification: Country is DDR; looks like wm 313

This is the 10pf (partial) sheet. I'm assuming it is #477A A being more (turquoise) green (according to EZ Stamp s/w) than 477 (blue.)
Postmark isMar 16,1960.
There is no example of the 'X' labels on the EZ Stamp s/w.

Art,

I'm not a DDR expert, but I think I can clear up your confusion a little... or make it a lot worse!

But first, a little German Stamps 101...

German stamps of the period were commonly distributed for sale in three major forms:

1. Full sheets
2. Booklets
3. Rolls

In a Michel listing, this is noted by the use of (B), (MH), and (R) notations.

(B) -- Bogen (full sheet)
(MH) -- Markenheftchen (booklet)
(R) -- Rollenmarken (roll)



So, if this is, in fact, a Sc 477 (MiNr 704), it was available in full sheets and booklets, but not rolls.

The booklets (Markenheftchen, or MH) consisted of a varying number of booklet panes (Heftchenblätter, or H-Bl.). The booklet panes were not printed in pane-sized sheets. They were printed in much larger sheets (Markenheftchenbogen, literally "booklet sheets", or MHB) then cut down to size. For this issue, there were 6 stamps to the pane, printed 6 panes to the sheet.

Not all MHB were cut into their respective panes, however -- because of the collectors' market, they were also available for purchase uncut.

So, the end result is that there are two types of full sheets for many German stamps -- the full sheet (Bogen) printed for direct sale to the customer, and the uncut booklet sheet (MHB). That's likely why the Scott listing doesn't match what you're seeing.

The full sheets were 10x10, with no labels.



The MHB was 11x8, with 54 stamps and 34 labels.



The reference in Scott to a 60/40 sheet is only for a special printing of a single issue, Sc 478a (MiNr 580 B), for the 2d German Stamp Exhibition in Berlin. The remaining stamps of this set were printed according to the normal pattern of 54/34.

Does that clear it up?

And just in case you weren't aware of them, here are two excellent references for the Five Year Plan -- Jay Carrigan's Guide and Wikipedia's Fünfjahrplan.

I think so, for the 10pf, I have the 'booklet sheets,' and for the rest I have the full sheets, which match exactly your example. I see the purpose of the labels now, as well. Didn't before.

As to the series issue, do you agree that the 20-70pf issues are from the #476-#482 issue? (Not that it matters a whole lot, given the cat value.)
Thanks for clearing it up.
Art

If you're sure they're all from the same series, then that is the likely answer. Your best bet, however, would be to check them all individually by watermark, design, perf, etc., against either the catalog or Jay Carrigan's guide to make sure you don't have a mixture of different sets.

Good advice. Re the watermarks, I did. Watermarks drive me crazy. As I recall, the watermarks I could read were all 313, altho some didn't look like 313, 297 or, for that matter 292 (I may also be thinking about my examination of the 'Official' issues). Nevertheless, I'm assuming they were all bought in 1960 based on the commonality and differences of the series and leave it at that.
Not familiar with Jay Carrigan's guide.
Thank you.
Art

PostmasterGS - Just realized you included the entry for the Carrigan Guide; took a look at it. Phenominal. Thank You. Had no idea something like this existed. Review of Carrigan reinforces my decision.
Art