Belgium 1962 Queen Stamp Issued Twice

Hi,

Attached are two stamps which have been allegedly issued the same day in 1962 (according to my old (1996) Michel catalogue). The stamps are identical except the monogramm. In one case it is "L" in the other case "ML". Surely one of them is wrong. The Queen's name was Marie-Louise, so probably the "ML" is the correct one...

What I do not get is why both stamps have been issued the same day, knowing one of them is incorrect.

Can anyone shed light on this

Thanks
Dieter

I agree,it doesn't make sense.
But according to this website the correct one (with L) was issued later :
http://kpolsson.com/stamps/errors/belgium.htm

Guess:
ML is correct Queen Louise-Marie.
Perchance the L was incorrectly shown as Queen Louise?

Thanks for the answers. Two questions then still remain

1. What is the correct one ML or L (since here name was Marie-Louise, but that would be more consistent with ML, contradicitng the website linked

2. When was the correct one issued, becuase neither my old catalogue, nor the linked website specifies

ML was incorrect,because ML could not stand for Louise-Marie
Here is an explanation (in french,sorry!)
But no date of issue for the second one.



(from "Royalement Blog")

Correct myself as rod says her name was Louise-Marie NOT Marie-Louise

Therefore the "ML" would be the wrong order, so likely the wrong stamp and "L" was the correct one since Louise came first

Still, can anyone check in a modern catalogue whether two different issue dates are specified ?

Thanks Vayolene,
Yandex

This blog explains how the two stamps came to be issued. To summarise, the error was discovered before the set's release. The Post Office had a corrected cylinder made and ordered the destruction of the stamps with the wrong initials.

A special post office at the Fine Arts Museum in Brussels had already sold 800 sheets of 40 of the stamp with the wrong initials. Consequently, the Post Office decided to release both stamps.

Unless the postmaster at the Museum ignored instructions, it seems unlikely the printing run from the new cylinder took place on or before December 12. That would imply the correct stamp was issued later as vayolene suggests.

https://www.postzegelblog.nl/2016/1...lgie-deel-1/

@NSK

Thanks for the clarification. However it is still possible that the corrected stamps were printed with the new cylinder in time, completely independent of the museum. So the corrected version was released on 12/8, and it was discovered that the wrong version had erroneously been sold in the museum post office and thus the decision was made that the wrong version would also be released same day to avoid price speculation.

Why am I mentioning this: So far there has been no evidence in any catalogue I am aware of, that there are different issue dates for the two stamps

@withdrawn,

I agree that it is possible. However, since the Post Office noticed the error, decided to destroy the original print and release new ones, some time must have passed between the decision to withdraw and the release of the stamp.

The blog states the decision was made to release the original stamp, because it was released at the special post office on 8 December, the actual release date.

Preparing a cylinder, printing and distributing stamps, normally, takes weeks, if not months. Even if this would have been done at great speed, days must have passed between the moment the Post Office decided to replace the stamps and their distribution to post offices.

To be able to release the replacement stamp in time, the error must have been discovered days before the release date. Hence, it must have required the post master at the museum post office to ignore the order for days and the management of the Post Office to decide not to retract the stamp it wanted to destroy for all that time.

It is not impossible, but highly unlikely. Belgium just is not the bureaucracy where a post master at a special post office thinks "Sod it!" That is how we work here.

@NSK

Your arguments are very logical, no doubt. I still then wonder why there is no differentation in the catalogs (again refering to old ones) of the release dates. And usually catalogues have this kind of informaation.

This one may settle it. It means the improbable happened.
The cancellation is for 8 December 1962. The Louisa-Maria stamp seems to be the corrected one.

https://www.briefmarken-versand-wel...-Koeniginnen

Mind you. It was cancelled at a museum and may be a souvenir cancellation that was applied at a later time.

@NSK:

There is still the possibility that the First Day Cancellation has been backdated. But as long as not clearly proven otherwise the stamps have both been issued on 8th December 1962.

One of them (the wrong one), according to your source, to most likely avoid price speculation since some of the erroneous ones had already been sold by one post office

There is another option for the simultaneous issue date of the two stamps which would also fit with the story from the source NSK provided:

The wrong stamp has been recognized, as mentioned, before launch (while a few were issued in a post office). But this was before 12/8. So the original issue date of the stamps was before 12/8. But due to the error stamp the issue was postponed for the corrected stamp to be printed. When the corrected stamp was ready there was a new issue date namely 12/8 where also the error stamp was issued to avoid price speculation.

Maybe the Belgian Post has decided and informed early that it would also issue the error stamp, so that there was no chance to "make money" with the prematurely sold copies.

Such a scenario has happened before (or rather after):

https://withdrawn-english.jimdofree...rency-label/

Same also with the German Christmas stamp of 2016. The stamp had errors, which were recognized before the intended release date (although a small amount of stamps, about 60-70 known as of today, found their way into the public, thus they sell for 1000€+). A corrected stamp was printed and issued about 4 weeks after the intended issue date.

The blog states the stamps at the Museum of Fine Arts special post office that caused the Belgian Post Office brass to reconsider destruction ocurred on 8 December. This issue was for the anti-tuberculosis week. It looks that was either the first full week of December or at the beginning of December.
Issues of 1961 and 1963 are from around this time as well.