Csa 6 And 7 Used Blocks?

I found these 2 blocks thrown into an accumulation I recently purchased.

Not my area but I think this one is CSA 6




And this one is CSA 7




2 main questions. Are my cat number assumptions correct with these not some type of fake or facsimile? Any sharp eyed member who can tell me or make an educated guess on the town names of the cancels?

Thanks

Bob

Huntsville and Hallettsville,Texas maybe

Hallettsville, Tex.

Carl

Be aware that Tasco produced blocks of four... https://stampsmarter.org/learning/a...l#gallery-44
Don

Thanks Just Fella, Carl and Don. I looked previously at the Trish Kaufman website and from the info there, thought these were the real deal. In terms of the Tasco information on Stamp Smarter perhaps I am looking at it wrong but I don't see a way to differentiate the reprints from the original.

Bob

Hi Bob,
I am no CSA expert but I am dubious; paper looks too crisp, cancels look too manufactured. But we need to have the CSA folks to weigh in.
Don

Thanks Don. And just when I thought it was my superior scanning capabilities that made them look so nice!

Bob

Here are genuine stamps:

#6


#7

Both cancels are undoubtedly fake. Both look to be made of lampblack (carbon), probably mixed with small amounts of water. Printers ink and postmarking ink are made of (at least) lampblack and oil (usually linseed), so it covers the surfaces of cancel devices and prints on a stamp and cover. The cancels in the OP show powdery edges to the breaks, showing that no oil was in the mix.

The breaks are placed nonsensically. The rim breaks don't follow wear on the letters which are also oddly worn. If the clerk was abusing the device this much by breaking pieces off, they would have thrown it out long before. The cancel I'm used to seeing for Huntsville, Texas for the period is this one, which is clearly larger than the one on the OP block:
https://stampauctionnetwork.com/SR/sr7731.cfm
See lot 1617

Aside from the fake breaks in the impression of the Hallettsville cancel, take a look at this:
https://hrharmer.com/en/_auctions/&...28&lotno=63#
click to expand and see the provisional and the postmark. Clearly, the postmark device was used to make the provisional stamp. The cancel on the block in the OP are certainly different in the weight of lettering, at minimum.

But take a look at the cancel on the OP block. What's that weird-looking date? It is the "10 PAID" cut up/damaged to obscure that portion. No, that wouldn't be used on stamps; it wasn't used on the cover as a CDS/dater. It appears the cancel used for the OP block was a device made using a photographic copy of the provisional with the thickness of all parts suggesting that it was blown up from a smaller image, as a guess from the Caspary sale catalog(?) or perhaps later.

Thank you hy-brasil for that thorough explanation. With fake cancellations seemingly so fully proven, anyone with a strong opinion on which reprint/fake variety these are?

Bob

The #6 block actually looks genuine. Genuine come on a hard and smooth white paper. There is a premium for blocks but this one has only one full margin so as a mint block it's not worth all that much. Genuine used blocks are worth quite a bit more than genuine mint ones, explaining the fakery.

The backing paper that it's on sure does not look to be from the proper period.

hy-brasil

I thought the paper that the 6 was mounted to looked more modern than 1860's vintage so a very sharp eye there!

The paper of the 7 from the back looks like stamp paper to me not newsprint. Still unclear on how to determine real vs fake.

Bottom line is that this analysis is outside of my wheelhouse.

I am going to put this up for auction here with the proceeds to go towards SCF. Hopefully someone might want these for their reference collection and whatever the best bidder deems these worth will go towards a good cause.

Will put that auction up when I figure out how to do it.

Bob