Help With Salvadorian Postage Due Stamp

Hello all!

I recently purchased this 1895 (?) El Salvador Postage Due stamp but a few questions arise about its exact identity. When looking in Scott, I assumed it was J3, but those are unwatermarked. If you can see, sideways watermark 117 is quite visible on the back image, implying a reprint. I see no other olive green postage due stamps of the same engraving. 1899 has J43, which has the sideways watermark, but that's orange, and this certainly isn't. Is this a simple reprint? Also note its size. It is perf. 12.

Many thanks and I apologize if my question is foolish!

edit: fixed broken images

PS: Good, sensible thread title... Take 10 points.

Unable to answer your question,
I have the 2c but not tested for Wmk.

If SCF fails to solve, you may wish to direct your query
to www.elsalvadorphilately.org

Please post any solutions.

This may have some relevance?
Text reads "The only reported example of Seebeck Postage dues on cover"


Bib: "El Faro" Journal (Front Cover)
year ll, No2
October 2005

This appears to be at least a reprint for sure. The original color is a darker green color, and also does not have the wash of ink color over the surface like the one shown. The reprints also come on fairly thick paper.

There were a lot of varieties created with the Seebeck reprints so I suspect that is the case here. that huge wing margin is not normal for the issued stamps, either.

So you believe that the original had no watermark, but this potential Seebeck threw caution to the wind and printed it with a watermark? How do you explain the shape of the stamp? The margin, that is.

Hmmm... I did have the Postage Dues, at least some of them.

You can see, (If they are Seebecks) The standard of workmanship.
Search this forum for "Seebeck"
(Not tested for Wmks)

The 25c looks like the deeper Olive colour



On an Artistic note.... Here is your 3c Postage due

I'm reading mixed sentiments on the Seebecks in the forum. Perhaps I will need to do more research to see if Seebecks had watermarks on reprints of originally unwatermarked issues.

Yes, that would be a reprint. Scott specialized notes that reprints of the 1895-8 issues (J1-40) are on thick paper, often wrong shades, and can be watermarked or unwatermarked. I have a number of the reprints from all those issues, including some from the 1895 set, and they are a mix of watermarked and not.

~Greg

Great,
Thanks for confirmation , Greg.