Pick On This Fernando Po

Here is a Fernando Po (if I was born Fernando Poo, I would have changed it, too) fiscal overprinted for postal purposes in 1899.



The overprint is

Fernando Poo 1899 | Habilitado | para | Correos | 15 Cent . de Peso .

This gets a pretty good catalogue value, which makes the overprint automatically suspect. Mine looks fairly good vis-à-vis the catalogue but I haven't found a good online guide for comparison or identification.

Thoughts, anyone?

Don't have the stamp, sadly, but the illustration in my old SG catalogue shows rather thicker type. There also appears to be a continuation of the central bar of the "F" to the left of the vertical and a full stop after "1899". The full stop after "Cent" is also closer to the word, rather than being hard on "de".

Thanks for checking SG. Of the Big Four, I only have coverage for Fernando Po in Scott and Yvert.

I do have an Afinsa Edifil at the office, but I have no idea how well it will be covered. This stamp came as a part of a small lot of nicer stamps, so I could believe it is genuine, but I have to suspect it is not. It has eye appeal, though.

[edited to fix braincramp...]

looks OK,

You can't go by the design in the catalogues as it was printed using stereos with each position in the group differing from the others in the positioning of the type,

Pagoda

That's the kind of pronouncement I'll take at face value.

All overprints on Spanish colonial stamps, use to be quite "fishy". On my 1996 copy of the Specialized Edifil Cat. (vol. III) there's no point after the "o" of "Peso", like in yours.

Hi Pagoda,

I assumed at first that these overprints had been typeset so there could be lots of variations in the details but I see both Scott and SG describe these overprints as being "handstamped".

Do you believe that a block of these was handstamped in a single action giving rise to multiple types, i.e. using a manually applied stereo? Or are these two catalogues wrong on this point?

According to Gibbons, it is both, the top part of the overprint is overprinted whilst the value is handstamped,

David B.

nigelc,

re.

" using a manually applied stereo ",

stereos were used to produce a plate for overprinting not for handstamping,

David B.

Hi pagoda,

That's my understanding too. I was trying to square your use of the word stereo with the "handstamped" description used by the catalogues. My SG Part 9 just refers to handstamping as far as I can see.

I popped over to the office earlier to see what Edifil might say (I had a braincramp yesterday and typed Afinsa), and wouldn't you know it, these overprints aren't included.

The note sends me to volume 3 of the Specialized. Which, I don't have.

I appreciate the ongoing discussion. My investment in this item is still right where I'm comfortable with it turning out to be a conversation piece, so my feelings will not be hurt.

I`ve got a 1996 copy of vol III of the "Edifil Especializado":




And here, you've the page with your overprint:



As I said before, your stamp has a point that it shoudn't be there

Looks like my forger may have been mixing elements of two overprints when fabricating mine. Thanks for taking the time to post up the page.