Unidentified Indian Postage Stamp (Half Anna)

So I have this stamp which is supposedly from 1857, but I can't find any information on it! I haven't been able to find any round stamps like that from the era. Is it fake, cut in a wrong way or have I simply been using the wrong keywords in my search?

Thanks a lot!

That is most likely not a stamp but a cut out from an envelope. Will not be listed in Scott or most other catalogs - you will need a specialized catalog for this. Probably not worth all the trouble.

Peter

Ok! Makes sense. Thanks a lot!

According to the Higgins and Gage. The year is good , it's a 1857 envelope , but they don't give any value for the full envelope and cutout will have even less value

Essentially worthless: the ½ Anna blue postal stationery envelope was in use for a long time. With an interesting postmark, it might be worth something.

cut outs are nice--but they kill the value. most collectors want the entire envelope--nice pic

This is a cutout from British India 1871 ½A Vic. blue on white laid paper envelope (Higgins and Gage B1a/Lang EA2) (12cm×7.1cm) with blue Lion and Palm Tree seal on the apex of the flap and with type III/IV printer's name (Thomas de la Rue and Company) imprint.

Here the stamp imprint was printed from Horsman type die 4 (die number is visible at the middle of bustline) which is characterized by the slight "v" formation of the horizontal stroke of the first A of ANNA.

The identification as 1857 issue is absolutely incorrect as the H&G B1/Land EA1 stamp imprints were printed from Horsman type dies 1/2/3 but not from die 4, mostly on yellowish laid paper and very scarcely on white laid paper.

Moreover the Cooper type 33 barred rhombic cancelation was begun to be used only from 1872.

Used H&G B1a entires are priced around $30 each and unsused $200+.

Fabulous information Joy,
very professional.
Nice work.

Well Joy . Where do you get those references ? because here the scan of the page of Higgins and Gage, I don't see 1871 the B ( enveloppe ) 1a is 1857 in my H&G


Here the page

Since when absolutely exclude scarce ?




actually not at all; it's pure speculation. It's obvious than the H&G book I used for ID have a lack of information ( H&G give only 1857 as date ) . So I ordered a Lang book . and to be certain we need the envelope , the seal , the stamp die # , the imprint.

We can't establish it's a laid paper from the image , we can't see also the die # at least me I don't see it even with enlargement.

From what we can see it'S a white paper, but white paper was used in all envelope with this stamp
in 1857 it was yellowish/white paper


Beside the 1871 date is very controversial, In the Lang book they write 1974? According to Cowen it'S 1874 and according to Singhee it'S 1871


from the image provide by the OP we can only say it's a Envelope cutout dating from 1857 to 1877




As usually I provide reference, so you can see by yourself

area66 do yourself a favor. Don't show your ignorance on public forum on the subject of Indian philately.
I like busting these balloons.

Now what is written along the line of EA2 numbering? I had seen for myself H&G B1a in Lang which I wrote but before learning the name Lang and getting it, the nitpicker did not know that.



Ref. Postal Stationery of British India 1856-1947.
Pratisad Neurgãokar.
private, Pune 2009
Chapter I: Envelopes; p.12

Higgins and Gage is absolutely incorrect to list H&G B1a as 1857 issue which was corrected by Lang thouh he got the date wrong as 1874 instead of 1871.

Cowen, Jain and Lang all erroneously recorded H&G B1a envelopes being issued in 1874 and now Ajitraj Singhi's date is accepted by all which is again why I wrote 1871.

Now to enlighten the nitpicker, Ajitraj Singhi is an expert of Br. India, Indian Convention states and feudatory states postal stationeries. He was elected President of the Philatelic Congress of India last year which is the national federation of philatelic societies in India and the representative body from India to FIP.

I see the nitpicker's knowledge has improved from "1857" to "from 1857 to 1877". The 1877 Lang EA6 issue is not even recorded by H&G.

The nitpicker again shows his/her super-glossy ignorance. Cooper type 33 cancels were gone by 1875 when type 32 prevailed at all post offices. So it is impossible to have a Cooper type 33 cancel on an 1877 Lang EA6 envelope.

Now it is clear that this nitpicker did not even know that die numbers existed in the imprint itself before reading my post and now is lecturing us showing die number page from Lang.
It may be difficult to read but I have no problem in seeing it from the scan.

Even if no one can see it, there is an identifying feature of die 4 which is the slight "v" formation of the horiaontal stroke of the first A of ANNA which is clearly visible here but not to the presbyopic nitpicker (what can I expect when the nitpicker sees 1874? as 1974?).

It is evident that the nitpicker never handled an 1857 H&G B1 envelope in reality.
The paper of H&G B1 is quite flimsy yellowish/white laid tranparent paper which was the same as that used later for letter sheets.





Ref. Encyclopedia of Indian Postal Stationery.
Manik Jain.
Philatelia, Kolkata 1973
Envelopes; pp.42-3

Anyone who has seen both H&G B1 and H&G B1a envelopes will find no problem to identify that the stationery cutout is not from H&G B1 from the white paper area visible in the Vic. bust. And I repeat H&G B1 envelopes on white laid papers are scarcer than yellowish laid paper.

There is no need to check for laid lines because both 1857 H&G B1 and 1871 H&G B1a envelopes were printed on laid papers but the nitpicker cannot distinguish between the 2 unless the laid lines are seen. I wonder if anyone else sane in the world would take this as an identifying feature to distinguish H&G B1 and H&G B1a.

The clincher is no doubt the A.

H&G B1 envelopes were printed from 3 different dies in different printings.

Die 1



Die 2



Die 3



Now see all for yourseleves which die features and faws corroborate to the cutout shown here. None does. I can bet the nitpicker does not have an iota of idea to identify H&G B1 imprints from dies which is evident from the posts, not to mention Cooper type 33 being used on an 1857 envelope.

So it is (and will remain) of course "speculation" to people like this nitpicker having half-baked (should I say quarter or less) knowledge to identify cutouts.

I have been in quite a few stamp discussuon sites incl. Aussie Stampboards and I must admit I have never encountered such b***hiness.

This is what me the so called insane presbyopic reply first




According to H&G I was 100 % right, I don't know India Stationary, I'm learning it, so since you post information at first who are not included in H&G and you refer to Lang, I purchase the Lang and then I made a post that is 100 % with Lang , I even post image . Then you come back insulting me ( who are you to insult peoples with name ? )

Seem at the end that I'm missing the Encyclopedia of India and the Postal Stationary of British India books, I just ordered them 10 minutes ago

If you have provide me the references I asked for instead of naming it will have server a greater purpose, because when I see something is wrong I search always for the truth






So 3 Authors are wrong, and me I'm giving name because I relly on them ????? I don't believe in Gods and certainly not in posts on the web, this is why I asked for references. This is the way professional writer do always in their book with the bibliography at the end of their books



I may have made the mistake to type 1974 instead of 1874, but I don't call name on peoples here it's against the rule

I have no idea why you are (again!) arguing with one of the foremost experts on the subject. You did this a few weeks ago with a known expert and now you take on Joy. It might be better for you to ask questions if you're unsure instead of always trying to prove these experts wrong.

This is a family forum and insulting others is out of place. English may not be the first language for some so we try to not over-react when there are errors in judgment. I think that there is good value in this thread so it is being left open for now but would like to ask that everyone show some tolerance.
We should view this thread as an opportunity to learn and move on.
Don

I find India one of the most confusing and hard to understand postal entities. It's nice to know there are experts who can sort this stuff out. And that is what makes this forum so valuable!