Spain - Unidentified Variety On 1932 Issue

Please - I have found a variety I am not able to identify.

Scott lists no 539 as either perf 10, perf 11,5 or imperf. I had a pile of them, and all perfs matched perfectly to the cataloge......until the specimen at the bottom of the pile showed up. It is perf 10 3/4 on all 4 sides I have measured and measured again, no doubt.



So lets count the perfs vertically. Sc 593 on the left has 17 perfs vertically and 539b on the right has 19 perfs. The unknown soldier in the middle has 18.



Any info or comments on this much appreciated

Is that particular stamp engraved or litography?

Hi Paco,
Litho

There are known litho postal forgeries, that one looks different to them.

Measure the design height and width accurately in mm
Let us know
Do not include the inscription at bottom

Thank you all for replying, that is interesting.

To the best of my eyes the perf 10 3/4 stamp is 23,0 x 29,5 mm. Seems like very minute differences to the other two: The perf 10 stamp is 22,7 x 29,2 mm. The perf 11 1/2 is 23,0 x 29,3mm.
For fun of it I measured the duplicates, and it seems they all are within slight size variations 22,5-23 x 29-29,5 mm.

Seems to me not much differences in printing between them, except the perf 11,5 is slightly overinked so the level of details appears slightly less than the other two.

Let me know if hires scan will make any difference. Does anyone have a catalog listing a perf 10 3/4 variety? It could potentially also be a imperf stamps that has been privately perfed - or simply a forgery. However I struggle to understand why anyone would bother to forge such a low-value stamp.

1. assuming the design is same for all , and taking 23mm x 29mm

Opinion:

The math shows me your first stamp is P10
the other two P11½

Remember perforations are allowable to meander .25 either way
Some US stamps I know defy the scott catalogue by half a perf.
You just have to live with it.

Look at your scan, Note the first top line is in the centre of the perforation hole,
Now look at the bottom, it is meandering lower, indicating your perf alignment is not correct
You need a sliding scale perf guage as an Instanta.

Another method is to butt the stamps side to side, and match the perf holes.

If I read you right, you are measuring the perforations down the side of the stamp?
Absolute no-no in a line perforated stamp,
this could vary to a large degree,
you need to measure against a constant, ergo the design measurement,
and the teeth visable over that length.

My last catalog is from 1991, but one thing is true. In general ... there are many things to learn about Spanish stamps. Almost none have been studied in depth, so there are many unknown and unlisted.

I think your dealing with 2 different printings on this stamp . The first is a lighter color were a lot of problems with the stamp design showing a lot of breaks in the design and then later a more heavy inking that makes it look darker and like a forgery. All mine are 11 1/2.

Look at the size of the holes of the perforations on the stamp in the middle and the 2 others, where is the re perforated squad when we need them ? This stamps exist imperforated

The stamps is larger too

Actually if it's a re perforated it's a good news, you like to make your own album, you have an opportunity to demonstrate an alteration on one of your page.

You may never know, may be the printer re perforate the imperforated stamps by a more manual way because the non perforated was not selling ( that's 110% speculation )

To be safe, put the word " Re Perforated or Unknown variety " under the stanps in the album, since you are virtual, you can always change it later

@Blaamand

In one of your posts you mention that the stamp in question
was printed via lithography.

Yet in both Scott and Michel it shows that the issued stamp
(Scott 539, Michel 627)was only printed recess engraving.

So are we talking here about a reprint or a fake or what?

It's hard to see on your scan but to me it looks like
your stamp was printed photogravure not lithographed.

WOW - you guys are really helpful


0.25 is to be expected - but not 0.75!

The bottom line is only a frame around the gauge, the 2nd bottom line is the one to look at, it's pretty close to the middle - at least it matches much better than 10,5 or 11. The sliding scale perf gauge would probably give the best match around 10,8





I have tried to align perfs at the bottom of the stamps. Tough the perfs are not the best, still obvious that the perfs on the stamp in the middle are getting misaligned as moving upwards. And it does not match any better with either of the two




Thanks Paco - seems I will end up as area66 suggest - noting re-perforated or Unknown variety.

btw - area66 - your spot-on with your comment on what I could do in my virtual album, however my digital pages for Spain ends at 1905, focusing on the classics only

Litho - thanks for your clarification. As you have discovered I am absolutely no expert on printings . I do love engraved stamps tough, and these did not immediately appear to me as engraved, maybe cause of overinking of some of my specimens giving a somewhat blurry impression.
Looking closely on a high-res it absolutely looks like photo. (...but the low-res image uploaded to this thread gives it no justice)



Funny how most stamps, particularly engraved, look great when enlarged.

Blaamand, you`re dealing with a stamp that is a bit mysterious. It was printed in both 1932 and 1938, and ... recently!

Here is a reprint authorized by the Spanish post office: http://www.elcosmosdeyoma.com/2013/...s-de_30.html

I'm still trying to find out if the 1932 and 1938 stamps share the same Scott (Ed., Mi., et al.) number.

There is no reprint of 1938 mentioned in either Scott or Michel.

There was a reprint, see below.

litho, as I say, it's a mysterious stamp. I've seen two sources now that comment on the stamp being printed in 1932 and '38. (Unless I'm entirely confused!)

Here's an interesting cover with the stamps that shows its odd perfs: