Hong Kond, Scott #66 ... Forged Or A Genuine Oveprint?

Any guidance for this overprint? This is a highly valued stamp in all catalogues (if I didn't miss to detect it properly), so I suppose that a big chances are that it is a forged... also, a short perf on the bottom will highly decrease it's value even it the oveprint is genuine.

Good luck filipo.
I don't think the bottom perf will effect the price if genuine.

A block of 8 from my database (web image c10 years ago)

Your biggest problem...1993 Gibbons lists NO evidence of a damage to the top arm of the last "E"

Valid point Rod, but Gibbons will usually only list flaws in a repeat position. The damaged top of the E "could be" a one-off?

Yes, it could be Tim, albeit doubtful.
The overprint forme was a block of 12, and I would imagine nasty damage to the "E" would have been picked up early.

Anything is possible, and the price would warrant expertisation ,
Alas, we have no "up close" images to campare and "toggle" the images to see if the
typeface matches, looks pretty good to me.

There were lots of typeface size and spacing inconsistencies, when you read the varieties in Gibbons.

Looks good ,have no problem with it . If I had the stamp in front of me then I would line up the overprints . Show you later how that is done .

hi; In the originals the 84 & 89 are a bit lower on the bottom as in your stamp..

Thanks for all replies!

"Broken E" seems to be a usual error... visible on a lot samples sold by this auction house...

https://stampauctionnetwork.com/ia/ia56135.cfm

This one example of the sold ones seems to be the most similar to the stamp I have... even 8 and 9 are in the line with other numbers (perf12 pointet about that).

When your going to expertize a overprint ,this is how it is done . I did this a few years ago ,some have already seen it but many are just thinking that you find a picture on the internet and that makes for a professional opinion .

Hello floortrader. When I am going to expertize an oveprint... I am sending the stamp to the expert for atest. I didn't want that someone will guaranteed me here that my stamp is genuine, because that is impossible... even on the much quality scans. 100 % identical overprint is not hard to make today, with all quality printers and photoshop softwares... it should be analyzied with a miscrope to see all tiny details about the ink etc.

So, your work on the stamp is a very nice, but still don't guarantee anything. Also (not sure for the Expositions stamp), but this Hong Kong overprint was made with different plates and printings with a numbers of differences amongst them... you can see on the auction link how many of the them have differenies from example to example.

As I have told initially, I am very doubt that my HK stamps is genuine oveprint... it doesn't look to be for me... all letters and numbers seems to be more thick than on original, and also a "tick" on the "g" in Hong seems to be totally different type of letter.

I just wanted to hear does anyone here, who is familiar this stamp, can see any obvious mistake...

filipo;The bottom of the 89 is a bit lower in the stamp sold in interasia .

first one is mine, 2nd is example from auction, 3rd is another example from auction...

I find your stamp is more like the 3rd stamp...Another thing is the photo of you stamp is not clear enough and on the monitor there are lots of disturbing things going on in the horizontal....

FILIPO--I disagree with you , "100% identical overprint is not hard to make today with all quality printers and photoshop software" . The modern inks and printers are a joke to forge a stamp overprint .
With reference books and copies of genuine stamps that I can blow up on a computer screen it doesn't take a high I.Q. to expertize stamps .Having my own reference points can tell me what the experts are looking at .

Unfortunately, today's printers and software are good enough to fool a large enough number of collectors and make it profitable for forgers.

floortrader: With due respect placing lines over an overprint is only helpfull to a certain extent.In your example "exposition le havre"I think it is a forgery.1)The lower horizontal part of the first L in philatelique is lower than the other letters.2)The serif of the 1 in 1929 is too thick & not at the right angle.3)The V in Havre is too wide open on the top.4)The s in exposition is to wide in it's lower turn.5)the accent is too far from the E.
And something else;the more I look at it, the more things I find wrong.
Explanations?
Certified copy:

Your scan quality is too poor to make a comparison ,scan it on a flat surface and I could view it . Then we can discuss it next to mine.