Danish Classics, Show Them To Me.

Denmark Facit 11a, 11c, 11e.

Denmark Facit 12a, 12b, 12c.

Denmark 13b. 13c. 13e.

Denmark Facit 14, three shades.

Finally, Denmark Facit 15a, 15b, 15c.

I have some other shades, watermark varieties and plate flaw varieties of the stamps from this set, and also a full set of imperf official reprints (such as the pair shown above by spain 1850) but let us not be carried away here. After this, I'll start showing biclored ovals with clear conscience (a bit later).

I suspect that the first shade of Facit 14 (8 sk) shown above is actually Facit 16 (linear perforation 12-1/2 x 12-1/2) but I cannot be sure.

I've noticed also that some of the Facit 11-15 set stamps have perforation 13 on the side, which contradicts catalog indications.

before I read your last message I was counting perf teeths and top stamp has 13.. but these stamps ALL 1864 are subject to heavy reperforation, especially 8 and 18skilling as these are most expensive.

your 3 8skilling are such examples... the line perforated has been repaired, not reperforated.. these lineperforations were almost always very rough and uneven, and most has been repaired to look prettier with even perfs.... i'll post a pic of one that hasn't been meddled with.

the other 2 has both had some reperforations to them.. 1st one top and bottom, last one, top, east side and bottom.

16skillings appear ok... last one has what looks to be a blind perf.. these are uncommon on the 2 4 and 16skilling, rare on 3 and 8.

This is a lineperforation in all it's glory, they would look like this, and collectors doesn't find this attractive.
so most of these stamps has had their perfs "sharpend"

the stamp itself would still be genuine lineperforation, but repaired and illegal (at least in Denmark)



a stamp like this is optimal for me, I really despise stamps that have been altered to appear better than they are.

and from what I hear, danish collectors are amongst the most snobbish and critical, when it comes to condition, in the world.

how is it looked upon in america? when it comes to something like this, and regumming and so on?

Sorsh
I collected Denmark before and I didn't know that some of the stamps I had were perforation repaired to look more attractive. Reading you i'm sure some were. Your scan of a not repaired stamp tells a lot. Many collectors today expect stamps of that era to have nice perf for a better value. Perf were not perfect in these days and that should be take into account when evaluating a stamp. I think you are right but the practice of reparing the perf will go on because collectors expect nice perf and many dealers too. Thank you for your great post. Daniel

Regumming is not a problem for me, because 19-century stamps are rarely never hinged, and if they are, they are too expensive. But I heard American collectors somplaining about regumming — for example, about regummed Zeppelins sold by dealers as "never hinged."

I wasn't happy to learn that some of my stamps have perforations deepened to make these stamps "prettier." Well, it's never late to learn.

Yes, I noticed the blind perf on the last 16 sk. stamp. But Facit doesn't indicate the value for this variety — or I didn't find it in their decriptions.

I have several stamps from the Facit 11-15 set that I didn't want to show because of their poorly looking perforations. Now I know that these are probably the unaltered ones!

This ugly one, for example:

OK. while I am at it, let's jump to the bicolored darlings.

These are, in my humble opinion,
Facit 20b (lacks one perf on top), bb, c, d, e, f, g (in poor condition), h (mint hinged), and I (lacking 2 perfs on top).
Tell me where I am stupid.

I have two lonely examples of Facit 21.
I think they are 21b and 21d.

Sorsh - Any type of "alteration", to make a stamp appear better, is looked down upon. But that's the problem. People are willing to pay large amounts of money for genuine, unaltered stamps which makes it very appealing for unscrupulous people to take damaged, or otherwise ugly stamps, and try to turn them into something very pretty.

This includes re-perforating damaged perfs, short perfs, or even adding perforations to stamps that have a natural, unperforated edge.

Regumming is also a big problem and is usually done to hide a previous hinge mark or a paper thin, due to improper hinge removal.

I myself do not look down upon a previously hinged stamp, as far as the gum goes, unless the hinge is placed to hide a repair or damage on the stamp. Even unused stamps, without gum, are in my collection. In some cases it's necessary to remove the gum to "save" the stamp, because of the chemical composition of the gum can, over time, ruin it.

To be sure, whatever collectors are willing to pay BIG money for, unscrupulous people will be right there trying to find a way to capitalize on it.

@Daniel .. thanks for the compliment, no country is left untouched when it comes to repairing/regumming/reperforation/fake cancels or similar...

@tvorog yes that 4skilling is as it was made, horrible :)

my theory is that because of pressure on time and delivery the printing house experimented with perforating several sheets at once, and sometimes so many that the needles couldn't punch through which also is the reason for the blind perfs. needles would simply break off much more often... following the 1864 issue, the bicoloured came, and the first printings of the 1875 issue you often see perf holes not punched out, you can see the needle pressure points, but it hasn't gone through.. i've never seen a blind perf though.
late 1880's they start to reappear again, and according to my theory, maybe there was a huge demand and they tried winning some time on perforation.

just a theory though.

the 4skilling isn't defective, it's just undesireably... and since they are so common, it's easy to find one that is ok.

1864 = poor perforation = many repairs/beautifications
1870 = thin paper and combperforation machine I = long even perforation teeth that wouldn't necessarily break off in the middle. like comb perforation machine II would... = attempts to reperforate out missing perfs.. (like your first 2skilling)


and now to your stamps.

picture 1 : it's not preussian blue, it's print Ib so facit 20a (these were most commonly printed in doublesheets 2*100 then cut in 2 single sheets and perforated... some on these where perforated on the line perforation machine referred to as Facit 25)
picture 2 : is print 6 so facit 20f
picture 3 : is pring 2b so facit 20bb
picture 4 : is print 4b so facit 20d eventough print 4 has a and b sheets... and a sheet is preussian as well and pretty rare.. facit doesn't have this information.
picture 5 : is print 2b so facit 20bb
picture 6 : is print 8 so facit 20h
picture 7 : is print 2b so facit 20bb
picture 8 : unused print 6 so facit 20f
picture 9 : also print 6.

facit 21 your 2 stamps.. you're correct about which you have.. they are just the other way around :)

1st picture is print 4 so facit 21d and last is print 2 so facit 21b

of the skilling issues.. 2skilling print 1b is by far my favourite.... so beautiful sharp contrast between the saturated ultramarine blue and the clean sharp print of the grey.

print 6 is always worn in the frame unlike print 1 which is so beautiful.

also 16skilling print 1 is pretty much the same as 2skilling, sharp grey frame with emerald green oval... beautiful *kissy mouth*