So Who's Afraid Of The Indian States?

You don't say whether these stamps are on the thin or thick paper, but I'm guessing they're on the thin paper. It would be virtually impossible to see the watermarks so clearly on the thick paper.

I looked through the India Study Circle Indian Post archives for any discussion of the watermarks on the Puttan types, but I couldn't find anything. I do recall that John Trowbridge wrote a series of articles on plating these issues a few years ago, but I don't think he discussed the watermarks.

As I said earlier, I haven't paid much attention to these issues myself; in fact, I sold off most of what I had some time ago. I did look at the few 1 Puttan thin paper (all used) that I still have, and didn't find the watermark neatly placed square on the stamp on any of them. It appears from your sheet that only the first two columns would show this, with the watermarks in the remaining four columns progressively displaced.

Hopefully one of the Cochin specialists here may be able to offer some useful comments on this.

Tony You are right it is on thin paper and that is why the water marks visible so clearly in on ordinary photo taken without any special setting. I do sincerely hope other experts/specialists of this forum will put their inputs in this regard.
To continue my story When I took this matter with SG that there is only 20 watermarks(umbrellas) for 24 Stamps they informed me that they have mentioned in their catalogue a small umbrella on each stamp which in turn does not specify one umbrella on each stamp .Further they informed there is a possibility of a an umbrella or portion of an umbrella due to sideways movement of watermarks which is a common phenomenon of cochin stamps and decided that it does not merit further discussion.But my contention is when I have presented them with a photograph of a stamp sheet showing 20 watermarks for 24 stamps, they should accept the fact and alter their catalogue information about watermarks of cochin stamps or call my stamp sheet as a fake/forgery(rough word, sorry.) Instead of this they are giving alternative arguments. Hence I am seeking your/specialist freinds views on this matter. There is also another monetary aqspect to this issue. These remarks of Sg people clearly shows that Your stamp collection or your research/curiosity studies does not have any VALUE till it is accepted by THEM .

I can well understand your frustration over listing the watermarks.

However, you'll probably need to be able to present the complete picture to Gibbons, before they change their listings. Were the other values in the set affected in the same way? For example, the 3 Pies plate was much larger: 5x8 stamps. Did it have the same problem with watermarks? And what about the ½ Puttan sheet? Were the watermarks properly arranged on it?

I'd say that, if you can show that
1. All the watermarks on all values were like those on your 1 Puttan sheet, or
2. This happened only on some values, such as the 1 Puttan, or
3. There were (at least) two types of watermarked paper used, for one (the 1 Puttan) or all values
Gibbons would certainly pay attention.

As I've said, I have very little early Cochin material left. I'm not in a position to be of any help. However, if you can get some of the other Cochin collectors to contribute what they know, you should be able to get somewhere.

Incidentally, sheets of the 1 Puttan seem to be fairly scarce. I looked at the catalogue for the Trowbridge sale of Cochin and Travancore from 2010, and found one lot. It was of approx. 700 of the ½ and 1 Puttan stamps, including just two sheets of the 1 Puttan, and seven copies of the ½ Puttan on cover. The lot was estimated at £250-300, but sold for £720. At least two other people share your interest!

Tony I am glad to learn new things/information from you thanks.
As suggested I will find out from those persons who are holding another 1 puthan and green 3 puthan stamp sheets(which was sold by me long time ago) whether these sheets contain the same watermarks settings etc.,?
With regard to valuation only, by Sg people, I am frustrated and not otherwise.I have observed from your earlier posting you have on several occassion expressed how some of the stamps of cochin are underpriced. In order to show how frustrated I am from these catalogue people in another post I will show you pictures of 2 more stamps pl watch them and let me have your comments on them

Tony
this picture of 3 stamps sent to the SG people for their comments to know whether this type of error merits/warant their attention. They have sent their comment as follows "As the error is not a consistant one they are unable to comment". I do not understand what they meant. Are they telling me Every 6th Stamp of Row 4 should have such Flying U. If that is the case How it will become ERROR.

Kolarshenoy, these are nice flaws on the Travancore-Cochin stamps, but I suspect that Gibbons won't regard them as important enough to list.

As I'm sure you know, Travancore-Cochin offers almost endless scope for these types of flaws. I suppose the catalogue editors have to draw the line somewhere. So they list outright spelling errors, like the 'FOUB' on the 4 Pies



or the 'SESVICE' errors on Travancore



When Gibbons talk about consistent, or constant, flaws, they usually want to know a sheet position, and to see proof that the flaw continued over a sufficient number of sheets. However, nice flaws like that raised 'U' in 'FOUR' are probably always going to be of specialist interest: too specialised for a general catalogue like the Commonwealth.

Incidentally, you'll find some more discussion of Travancore and Travancore-Cochin here: http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopi...f=13&t=20387

I confess that before reading this thread, I did not give much thought to collecting Indian states; however, now I am very intrigued by them. Sincere thanks for that!

Can someone shed a little more light on the stamps of Bahawalpur? They are noted by tonymacg back on page 1 of this thread, but I cannot find Bahawalapur on lists (like Wikipedia) of either the stamp-issuing convention states or feudatory states. Was there something special about Bahawalapur's status as a stamp-issuer?

Mackay's Encyclopedia of Stamps even remarks (p. 215) that Bahawalapur was an independent nation between partition (in August 1947) and joining Pakistan (in October). Is this true, and was it accepted by the UPU?

Some of the other questions:
What years did Bahawalapur issue stamps, and how many?
Were they accepted as postage outside of Bahawalapur?
Are all the designs legitimate for postage or revenue, or are some designs cinderellas or CTO?
Would a complete collection of the stamps of be worth the effort to collect as they are very attractive, or are they considered "wallpaper" by better informed collectors? (I realize that I am asking for more of an opinion here.)

If Bahawalapur was already covered in detail on another thread, I apologize. Thanks in advance for any and all assistance.

Kevin

Welcome to SCF, Kevin - and I forgive you for your interest in Bahawalpur

Bahawalpur was a rather special case. Gibbons lists it after Pakistan, not India, as it was the only Indian State issuing stamps at the time that acceded to Pakistan. (Las Bela akso acceded to Pakistan, but it only issued stamps between 1897 and 1907.) You might have to look under Pakistan to find it.

Now, as to the stamps. Like those of most of the Indian States, they were only valid for postage within Bahawalpur itself, possibly barring the period from August to October 1947, between the end of British rule in India and Bahawalpur joining Pakistan. (Their status at that time is uncertain.) In any case, Bahawalpur never was, nor ever could be, a member of the UPU.

The stamps themselves are a bit tangled. However, we can divide them into four periods:
(1) 1933: Bahwalpur tried unsuccessfully to get the Imperial Post Office to agree to allow it to run its own postal service. Bahwalpur produced a stamp in anticipation of the go-ahead, but it was never officially authorised, although a few copies seem to have passed through the mail. This is the listing in the old Bridger & Kay 5 Reigns Catalogue:



(2)1945: The British gave approval for Bahwalpur to issue stamps for government mail (SERVICE) only. These consisted of Revenue stamps overprinted in Urdu 'SARKARI' ("SERVICE"). Some of these are rather scarce:



They were certainly legitimately used on mail, although in most cases, used are scarcer than mint:



(3) 15 August to 3 October 1947: The overprints on India. These are scarce to rare mint, and much worse used. Gibbons prices all values from ¼ Anna to 12 Annas at £38 each, which is pretty fair. You won't get a genuine one much cheaper.

(4) 1947: After joining Pakistan, Bahawalpur opened its post office to the general public of Bahawalpur.

Period 1 (1933) is your choice: the stamps turn up occasionally, and sell at around $50 each mint. Genuinely used you can forget about: there are fewer than five in existence.

Period 2 (1945) are - to my mind - thoroughly legitimate. If I collected Bahawalpur seriously, these are the ones I'd focus on.

Period 3 (1947) Good luck, but you'll need very deep pockets (Gibbons' price for the set is £10,000) and a lot of patience

Period 4 (1947) These are next to wallpaper. Some of them were used legitimately, but the great majority of used are CTO. The first pictorial definitives were probably fairly halal when they first came out. However, the story goes that the Nawab was fond of gambling on the horses when in London. When he ran short of cash, it is said, he would phone up De La Rues and order another printing of his stamps - with the result that the reissued high values in different colours of 1948 still sell at new issue prices. (The 10 Rupee Service overprint is listed at 80p in Gibbons, or about two times face value in 1948.) The UPU commemoratives were pure exploitation, since of course, Bahawalpur wasn't a member.

In defence of the Nawab, it has to be said that he was a keen stamp collector. That's why his stamps are so good. It's just a pity he debased them. Of course, every collector is free to collect whatever they want ... but I don't take Bahwalpur seriously.

I do take the other Pakistani State, Las Bela, seriously though:

Tony,

Thanks for the welcome to SCF. And thanks so much for the explanation and insights. Wow!

This clears up so much of my confusion about Bahawalpur. My new rule is to be cautious before spending hard earned cash on some of the Nawab's follies. I will continue to plug along and build my collection across all the states; and now you have me wondering about Las Bela (cool cover strips on your last post!).

Of course, it's all your fault really. If you weren't so well informed, your posts weren't so well written, and you didn't share your philatelic knowledge so openly with blundering fools (like me)...I would have never become interested in Indian states.

(By the way, I am a fan of Alfred Jarry and I love your signature on SB.)

I am looking forward to following more posts from everyone on this thread. Thanks, again!

Kevin

Delighted to have been of help with Bahawalpur, Kevin. Actually, it resembles so many of the other States in having its 'good' and 'bad' periods. I can't help thinking of Charkhari, say, with its 'bad' 1931 pictorial set



(How on earth could Charkhari justify a 5 Rupee stamp?) and its 'good' periods, before and after



(Using up those redundant 1 Rupee stamps sitting in the State Treasury)

Las Bela really must take the biscuit as having the most dreary stamp designs of all the States; but on the other hand, it's one of the few States to have maintained an extraterritorial State Post Office, in Karachi. In fact, Karachi cancellations would be the second most common, after Las Bela itself. Just try finding any cancellations other than (Las) Bela and Karachi: so far, I've found one. Jammu & Kashmir also had extraterritorial offices, at Sialkot, just over the border, and Amritsar, and of course the complications of Indore's postal system are well-nigh endless:





(Indian postal stationery envelope, cancelled with an Indore State CDS, going to Ujjain in Gwalior, where Indore maintained an extraterritorial PO) and this Indore postal stationery card



cancelled at the Indian Post Office at the Dhar (State) PO in the Sundarsi enclave, which was jointly administered by Dhar, Gwalior and Indore. The possibilities make one slightly dizzy ...

Yes: there really is enough in the Indian States to keep anyone happily amused, forever.

And Alfred Jarry ... I do love Père Ubu's straightfoward approach to things!

"I have the honor to inform you that to enrich the kingdom I'm going to kill all you nobles and take your stuff." Père Ubu

Yes, but not as pithy#12288;...