Cape Of Good Hope - Genuine Or Forgery ?

Hello all again,

Two on the first row has clear water mark but the shape of anchor is slightly different to the SG listed on 2013 Commonwealth and British Empire catalog. So I wonder if these are genuine or forgery?

The bottom row one need to check for water mark as well, which I haven't done yet.

So, can some one help me to identify these stamps catalog numbers and the value?

cheers

You can see some forgeries of Cape of Good Hope compared to genuine here:

http://stampforgeries.com/forged-st...f-good-hope/

If you want people's opinion on your stamps I suggest you post larger images.

Yes, instead of scanning 3 at once do them individually and crop away the spaces up to the edge of the stamp. It also helps to have a black background and if you scan them @ 1200 dpi the nice detail can help us help you.

Here is the ideal size and one for you to compare yours with.

I have some examples but would have to dig to find them. It isn't my area of expertise by a long shot but I would say the top two are reprints with fake watermarks and cancels. The bottom stamp looks more like what I would expect for the papers used in that period and think it is probably a genuine stamp.

Agreed, Stamps were printed with nowhere close to the spacing it would require for margins like the first 2.

Example

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cape-of-Goo...em3a967027ca

Perhaps from a philatelic souvenir sheet ?

Hello Randeni, your first two are definitely not genuine. Fakes or forgeries? - discuss the difference. The margins are way too big and the watermark looks completely different to the genuine anchor. Sorry I don't have a scan of the genuine watermark handy.

The 6d is completely the wrong shade for even the most "grey" of issues, the 1863 slate-purple (which is on blued paper, though sometimes this is not obvious). Both your stamps have postmarks which look identical to the roller cancels in use at the time.

As far as I am aware, there were no souvenir sheets made of these issues. The so-called "woodblock" issues (1861) were reprinted several times, all unofficially, but they were in nice bright colours different to the originals, and were never intended to be passed off as genuine.

The early issue of the 4d (1853, SG2 and 2a) is on blued paper and is quite distinctive. Without a higher quality scan I can't tell you with certainty which of the other two issues your 4d is, but the clarity of the lettering suggests the earlier 1855 De La Rue printing (SG6). This is usually the most commmonly encountered. Many of the issues had sideways watermarks. These are scarce but don't have incredible rarity value, but it's definitely worth checking.

Hello again,

I have been trying to get a better scan and here is one of it is. Now this raise another question, if this stamp is a forgery has it been actually used for postal purpose or even the franking is fake?

cheers

4d (Fourpence) Blue "Hope" seated.

May I get the knowledgeable to suggest what the Scott Cat number would be for this one, please?

Genuine?
White wove paper.
Not interested in value, just ID.
Thanks.

Rod, this is a difficult ID to make without having the stamp in front of me. Also I can only give you the SG number. Looks real enough, though. Likely to be the 1864 printing, SG19, if there is absolutely no trace of blueing on the paper.

Thank you very much Tim.
OK. SG19 it is then.

This translates to Sc#13 (first meeting with the phrase "granular ink" ?)

No blueing whatsoever.

What do you look for, when a stamp is in your possession,
Care to share your secrets?

I was concerned the Eastern side looks as if the edge of the sheet paper,
I cannot see them printing that close to the edge.
So I can accept the margins as normal.

Update:
Reveals a beautiful Scott Watermark #15 Anchor. Smack in the middle.
So that nails it.

Rod, the blueing of paper is really the main thing to look for. Apart from this, they can be quite difficult especially for the earlier printings. Just to make it awkward, some of the earlier printings don't show very prominent blueing.

A more reliable clue is to look closely with a magnifying glass, as the later printings (such as yours) can be quite worn and the detail can be a little blurred. Forgeries can be quite good, but they usually look "too good" as the detail is too sharp. The colours of the forgeries don't match originals. Some of the forgeries are themselves very collectible. Look out for any material by Oneglia.

The watermark isn't really helpful as it's the same one for all 3 printings. It's really nice, however, to find the sideways watermark!

Cheers Tim.
Personally, I would go by the face of "Hope" as well,
I doubt a forger could get anywhere near the features shown on an original.
She looks quite pensive.

Getting us back on topic, here are some COGH triangular forgeries from various forgers. I've only managed to identify Oneglia so far, with a very distinctive and rather sour-looking "Hope".

The 1d brick-red is a very convincing and dangerous forgery but the paper's the wrong thickness (too thick) and the barred canceller type was never used in Cape Province.

All the forgeries I have ever seen had four margins and the cancels are generally too nicely struck. Michael Aldred

Michael,
Not my field but I've never seen a 4 margined Cape of Good Hope triangle. Genuine or fake.
When you post in old threads like this one and the 3 year old Argentina thread you added a comment to yesterday, it's helpful if you mention that it is an old thread.

https://goscf.com/t/50071#624901

Me neither......