World Classic Doppelgängers

"It would not be the first time Scott gets it wrong with European stamps. Other catalogues also contain errors, but Scott appears to be off quite more frequently."

I wholeheartedly agree, as I myself have encountered same. As an aside, 1949 was a very lean year in Germany; no money to spend frivolously.

As for the nature of the printings, Michel, of course, is the authority, the horse's mouth. This is what I saw prior to having commented, and I already knew it was a "long shot"...

The two above state "litho", whilst the one below states "typo", but nothing for the issue in question; an indifferent compiler there at Scott, possibly?

Then, the issue is of 1949...

"Forum Description: This includes pre-1940 mint & used stamps of the World."

Of course, I've seen other instances of crossing the timely thresholds, but I do not.

What does Michel state for the issue? Still, I think that the bottom one, "Augsburg", is genuine.

Then...

"Not on chalk-surfaced paper. That was not used in 1902."

True, and I did think that that was what you had meant, but still you had stated...

"The carmines were first issued 1906..."

We'll get to the Georgian 10d issues in time, but first we need to sort through those Edwardian.

Here they are again. Aren't they lovely; well, one of them isn't so much...

My preceding post was



The change from ordinary to chalk-surfaced paper was intentional. The first issue of the 10d stamp on this paper was in September 1906. The 10d on ordinary paper is another issue.

I wasn't quoting that reply; another rather, but I sha'n't press.

The chalk paper was used to, render futile, attempts to re-use the stamp, and yes, for that of 1906, and that subsequent in 1910. This does not include the "in memoriam" issues of 1911-12.

I'm still waiting as to which is which, and what is what.

The pursuit of truth is precious.

Maybe @cupram can show this. But from his previous posts, he is using Michel for his German collection. He did state a couple of things when describing why the 'Augsburg' one is a fake that point at a German source.




It would be interesting to learn why you think that is the genuine one.

Following the thread, the earlier post, already, limited the options to stamps printed on chalk-surfaced paper. Stating when these were issued as a completely different stamp makes little sense to me.




There was no 'in memoriam issue.' They did not serve in any way to honour the deceased monarch. Those were 'Provisional' issues.




Hence, we should consider that a provisional printing out of necessity does not constitute an 'in memoriam' issue.

De La Rue lost the contract for printing stamps to Harrison and Sons. As there was no stamp for the new reign, the GPO continued to order printings of the old designs to replenish stock.
Harrison and Sons had little experience (well, no equipment for) printing bi-coloured stamps. At the same time, they were busy with the new stamps.
Harrison, provisionally, continued the printing of mono-coloured stamps and the stamp printing branch of the Inland Revenue Service, provisionally, continued the printing of bi-coloured stamps.




You appear to have answered that question yourself

I was referring to the 10d issues of Somerset House, in that.

Also, regarding the 10d pair, 1906-10, you got one of them wrong.

The Somerset House 10d stamp cannot have a postmark before 9 October 1911. So both are De La Rue.
De La Rue printed these stamps on chalk-surfaced paper issued from September 1906. It is very difficult to determine from a scan whether a stamp was printed on chalk-surfaced paper or ordinary paper. But the odds are that a stamp used on 6 May 1910 was printed on chalk-surfaced paper.




I know, so was I. That does not make them 'in memoriam stamps.'

If you ever go to London and visit 399 Strand, walk towards Waterloo Bridge. Where you turn onto Waterloo Bridge, look left. That is Somerset House.
Somerset House is not a printer. It is the location of the Stamp Printing Branch of the Inland Revenue Service, the actual printer of the stamps.

@cupram

Is this link of any help?

https://www.briefmarken-versand-wel...lschungen_s4

It appears your forgery is the 'Winter"-Produktion as you had been told on another forum. You caught all the elements that identifies it as a forgery. And the cancellation also is a forgery. The link shows one on piece with a München cancellation.

"I wonder why, within three years, that value would be printed in turquoise..."

Actually, two years, in 1912, for the first Georgian 10d, 12 minus 10 equals 2.

Then, six years rather...

You thought that that one was of 1910, and by its postmark. That one was postmarked on the day of Edward's passing, in Brighton, and something of a memorial specimen. A lot can happen in six years. Who knows why they made the switch to turquoise in 1912. Red ink is still cheap, economical. Why are barns painted red, here in the U.S. anyway? It was certainly not to make them attractive.


Incidentally, that one of 1910, is a sub-doppelgänger of the one of 1906, and with both being doppelgängers of the 10d of 1902. I don't have one of those, of 1902, yet. Well, actually I do, but it is not fit to present; else I would've already propped up yet another pair onto the board.

We may now progress to the Georgian 10d pair...

An interesting question. I did a quick google review and found that Farmers Almanac has the following suggestion:


I didn't know that, so this thread was useful, it appears.

From the available information you are from the USA. English is not my native language, So, likely, I am wrong that 1912 is within three years of 1910.




I agree. So, for the people that like those little trivia. The 10d MacKennal was first issued on 1 August 1913.




Again, my bad. I fell asleep during English class







Here was I, thinking I was stating that the 10d carmine frame on chalk-surfaced paper was first printed in 1906, that there were subsequent printings, and that the stamp was cancelled 6 May 1910 - Indeed a very nice date – and nothing but that.

Re: red barns.
I would take the Farmers Almanac with the same grain of salt as Wikipedia. Always verify.
While the availability and chemistry parts may be true, it paints with too broad a brush (pun intended) to suggest the pervasiveness of red barns. White or black barns are quite common in certain areas of the country.

The Smithsonian author has not traveled many back roads. There are plenty of non-red barns to be found in America, but this is all off-topic to philately.