Maurtius 1848 Forgery

The 2nd photo in the original posting is a genuine Post Paid which was listed on ebay for at least two years with seller Status International ; they bought it at auction for about £27000 and then tried to sell it for nearly double that figure. I'm not sure if the current seller is a branch of the same company. It is certainly a genuine "earliest" stamp, but whoever cut off that large bottom margin just to get rid of a tiny foxing stain was foolish.

The first photo in the original posting looks to me like a cut-out book illustration of a genuine stamp - the paper is the wrong type. Or less likely, perhaps an autotype copy of an original stamp, although I would expect that to be glossier. The two sheets of Sherwins shown by "floortrader" are autotypes printed for inclusion in a 1900 RPS Handbook on South African stamps - 600 were made of each. They were created from black reprint sheets taken from the original Sherwin printing-plates, before the plates were defaced with vertical cuts by the RPS. Autotype is basically a photo-lithography process which produces a realistic copy of the original.

BOB (Mauritius collector for 47 years)

Bob ,thank you for your posting and the additional information on my sheets ,I will add that info. to my album page .

Thanks for confirming the first image most likely just a cut-out .

On the subject of the foxing that was cut off ,is it correct ,once the foxing begins it usually just grows and spreads over more of the stamp .

Good info added. Thanks 'floater.

Thanks Frontfloater - am I right in saying that this wouldn't be autotype though in my first image as all the ones I have seen including the Sherwins you can see a distinct outline of the stamp on the paper. One of the best copies of these were done for the royal collection book which showcases a number of Mauritius stamps as below where you can, as with the Sherwins, see the outline of the stamp from the paper which you wouldn't get from an engraved version? Or is there a way to autotype without this stamp outline?



The paper I'm not sure is something you would have in a book either as the rear of the stamp is slightly shiny with the front more matt and fiberous - unless it was a plate type page from a book?

I've asked some other stamp enthusiasts who agree it is from plate 10 as per the other image as it matches perfectly with other examples whether that is some sort of copy/reprint or a really impressive forgery I don't think we will know and I can't find any others.

Are there any other good examples apart from above of autotype stamps copies of Mauritius pre 1859 that you know of? Thanks for your time

Also if it is a book illustration how is it so accurate? I collect forgeries as a stamp collector and of all the forgeries I own from an large number of Sperati and Peter Winter none have come close to being as accurate when you overlay with an original image. For a book illustration as the ones I have seen in stamp albums they are either inkjet prints and generally obviously illustrative as easy to see errors.

Be interested what books there are which would have colour prints like this as I would love to own them?

Thanks again

Having looked at the original post again, I believe that the first photo is probably an illustration or copy of the very same stamp as the 2nd photo - perhaps taken from an old auction catalogue or reference book. The match between the tiny white flaws is so close, and unused earliest printings are so extremely rare, that the chances of another stamp existing which would also have such close similarities are almost nil.

I am convinced it is not a forgery created by engraving a plate to imitate the original - no forger could copy so perfectly. Only Sperati's method of using genuine stamps to create near-perfect copies would be able to get this close. But the chances of him being able to obtain a genuine unused earliest stamp would surely be very low, and very costly even in his day ; and also the specialist Sperati website and 1955 BPA book make no mention of a 2d forgery.

As to what method was used to copy and print the 1st item, I cannot be sure. But in view of the perfect detailing but less than perfect colour match and depth, I would still place my bet on a photographic print of some kind.

BOB

simon - not really my area, but Wilson's book on the royal collection includes colour plates, including the "post paid" stamps.

They do not match. Cert is no longer valid, not that Brandon certs are well respected in any case.

I am still agonising over these.
Bob suggests the lower stamp of the OP is genuine.

Am I correct in assuming there are 12 different 2d POST PAID blues?

In my records, Forgeries of the above, exist in
Types B,C,E,G and H

Type B Forgery test is
No dots in corner ornaments

Type C Forgery
No vertical lines in background

The so called "genuine" stamp has no dots, and No vertical Lines

Genuine stamps have crossed vertical and oblique background lines
I cannot see how that apparent genuine, is so

Bib: Forged stamps of the British Empire . H. Bynof-Smith.

Any insight whether or not this one is legit?

224214200331

Looks like one of the forgeries with a fake cancel. The corner stars do not match any of the 12 known plate positions. Each has distinct star rays but none looks like the stamp in your link. Nice spacefiller, though.