Italy Stamp Imperf 1862-63 Is This Type I Or Type II, Please Help Me Identify?

Interesting. I will have to reconsider the method I use. I normally avoid determining a Type II by the thin line under the Q unless I see the line completely missing under the Q. The reasoning -- sometimes the oval has a lot of discontinuities when poorly printed, so that little breaks appear everywhere along the oval. The stamp shown in the original post seemed to be such an example. Which is normally why I examine the left "C" when I don't see the full break immediately. But I will have to reconsider my approach... thank you.



I won't tell if you won't tell.

For the record, I never said it was a postal forgery, but was wondering if there might be a possibility as I understood there were 2 known postal forgeries (i.e., counterfeits). I was wondering mainly because the top right of the left vertical oval is not well-rounded like the limited number of genuine stamps I had seen. Edw_kim didn't understand that I was actually trying to help him in his quest to find a "rare" stamp, however remote the possibility. The catalog snippet provided by Blaamand will be very useful. I guess the unsmooth oval may be related to the clique setting? Thank you!

@edw_kim - I do appreciate that you are initiating many threads about interesting stamps. And I agree with others you would do much better by paying more attention to what all these knowledgeable and kind gentlemen are saying - first of all you should take onboard they are trying to help you and not the other way around.

For the matter of the community I think this particular stamp is a good subject for study, as there are loads of them floating around in general WW collections.

So let's do a close-up of an area of a few stamps and compare with Sassone's illustration:




The stamp in question in the OP is presented between the Sassone illustrations. I believe it is supposed to be a Type I - the 'C' has a narrow gap and the line under the 'Q'is just as continuous as other parts of the frame (note - there are several other small breaks on the oval/line). However I believe there's something funny with the 'C' - its like it is almost completely closed, much more than in the Sassone illustration. Furthermore all the breaks in the oval makes me think this was printed in poor quality, and not during the original printing.

What is more interesting in my mind is the image from Area66 of a supposedly certified Type I. To me that one looks suspicious as well! The 'C' looks more open than for Type II in Sassone - and the line under the 'Q'is allmost gone - so how come it is Type I? Would appreciate if any expert would chime in and let us know if that certificate is really telling the true story

For some reason I think the stamp Type I purchased by Area66 is the only one looking like it should. It closely resembles the Sassone illustration, and the printing quality seems fair enough. It looks like the entire print of this stamp has been curved slightly - due to shrinkage of wet paper after printing? Area66 - would be interesting if you could let us know if it is really curved (when you receive your purchase). The cancellation is Aug 63 and within the period of usage as per Sassone. It looks like it's been postally used - but that is really only guessing. I like it regardless, nice find.

Stamporix's stamp is presented at bottom.

Comments welcome

@khj - my apologies if you got the feeling that I indicated that you said so, my English writing may easily be misunderstood. I perfectly understood your reasoning and that this was only a very slight opportunity. Glad you found it helpful, my intention was along the same lines as yours

No apologies necessary, Blaamand. I fully understood your English and know you well enough to know you are not that type of person. Our Scandinavian friends all have impeccable English as far as I'm concerned. I'm pretty sure I make more typos or grammatical errors that you all. I only mentioned it because I wanted to refute the earlier accusation that I claimed the OP had a forgery. I was only wondering aloud.

Again, I appreciate the Sassone snippet. Still waiting on getting a Sassone at the "right price".

I noticed that, too.

The seller's detailed description in the listing states: "Type I with first C on bottom line open and broken frameline below Q". That's actually the description for Type II.

The certificate says "type I", but now I'm wondering if that is a typo, and the expertizer meant to type "type II". I noticed there is at least one more typo on the certificate -- "litography".

I didn't mention this earlier because I didn't want to distract from the effort to ID the OP's stamp. But now that you mentioned it...

I, too, would like to hear from others regarding understanding the certificate assignment of Type I.

Hi;Nice Link too (Falso dell'Aquila)....
http://www.giandri.altervista.org/g...tAquila.html

Nice link perf12, thank you!

this is why I purchase them, I can see a Type I and type II side by side, and they don't fit the profil of a forgery, Floodtrader have a nice tread for the forgery one.

I have never been after money with my collecting, it's all about the forensic work and the research ...

Here again my 2 types





and here a close up of the third one , type II canceled

@khj - cool, thanks - you are a true gentleman

Yes, the dealer simply having made a typo would be a good explanation. He was obviously seeing the same as we do. Very funny though to make a typo on the most important part of the certificate !

Nice link perf12 - link saved for future reference

Anyone have some opinions about the authenticity of the other samples in the comparison above?

- absolutely

For what it's worth, here are the Type I (left) and Type II (right) that I had previously ID'ed to put in my collection. Obviously condition is not good and I didn't check for forgeries.



With all the additional info provided in this thread, going back through these two and duplicates will be on my list of things to do...

yes blaamand that was great help..a "typical normal reply" to the OP in question..kind regards..edw_kim..

note-below are images of the OP after soaking was done,paper on reverse removed..

So the stamp is not printed at the back. So not a rare 23f canceled.

So I receive the stamps today and I make an informative pages with the info of this page, Insert in a plastic protector in my Scot Int. album, the look is not good but it's serve the purpose

Hallo
Attached three pics of some forgeries of the stmaps of 15 centesimi of 1863.


Forgery of Naples, oon of the 6 types kwnowed.



Two forgeries of L'Aquila
All the stamps are certified.