Chats on Postage Stamps

by Frederick John Melville

So far as can be judged from the examination of specimens of this forgery, the paper used was that on which were printed certain "Inland Revenue" stamps—probably the Threepence, which alone was watermarked and perforated as were the two stamps imitated; but possibly other fiscals also were used—the colour being chemically removed, leaving a blank piece of paper, properly and genuinely watermarked and perforated, all ready to receive the fraudulent imitation. An undoubtedly clever, but almost unsuccessful, fraud on collectors; though rumour has it that a well-known philatelist, usually credited with capability to protect himself, was a victim for a substantial sum, as the price of an unused "Pound Anchor"!

A recently attempted fraud—this time of the kind known as a "fake"—has been, it is hoped, successfully exposed. As is well known, especially to collectors of British stamps, the first Twopence Halfpenny stamp, issued in 1875, shows an error of corner-lettering on plate 2: the twelfth and last stamp in the eighth horizontal row should have been lettered "L.H.—H.L." but, through want of care, actually bore the letters "L.H.—F.L." This error, especially in unused condition, is scarce, and the faker has naturally made an effort to supply the deficiency.

Obviously, the easiest way to manufacture this error is to select a stamp from plate 2 with the lettering of "L.F.—F.L." (the last stamp in the sixth row), and alter the first "F" into "H", with hope of probable success because the collector's criticism would naturally (if wrongly) be concentrated on the incorrect letter in the lower left-hand corner. Unfortunately for the "fake," which was very well executed, its creator, wishing no doubt to enhance its value, had left the "error" in pair with the eleventh stamp in the same row: result, a very nice pair from the sixth row, lettered "K.F.—F.K.", "L.H.—F.L.", showing (as a consequence of being in pair) a mistake—"H" for "F" in the upper right-hand corner. This, of course, condemned the error at once, but the example serves to show how very careful one must be, and how necessary it is to examine and consider every circumstance in connection with the particular stamp under observation.

There are two varieties of stamps, differing from the normal through some slip in the process of manufacture—bicoloured stamps, in which the portion printed in one colour is inverted as regards the remainder of the design, caused by carelessness in "feeding" the partly-printed sheet wrong way up into the press, for the second impression completing the design; and pairs of stamps, which, each quite normal if severed, are when se tenant inverted in respect to each other, a condition philatelically termed tête-bêche.

The fraudulent manipulator has turned his attention to these, generally scarce and frequently very rare, eccentricities, cutting out from the bicoloured stamp the part printed in one colour and replacing it with great care, but upside down; and, as to the tête-bêche pairs, manufacturing them by means of two single copies, a strong adhesive mixture and heavy pressure.

Sometimes, so well have these frauds been made that nothing short of several hours' boiling has sufficed to dissolve the illegal union of the two pieces of paper—a drastic test, and one somewhat detrimental to the value of such copies as are enabled, by their genuineness, to survive the ordeal. The possible result to, say, a mint imperforate Fourpence, Ceylon, suspected of having recently acquired its otherwise desirable "margins," reminds me of the test given (not advocated) by a famous philatelist for the detection of forgeries of early Cashmere stamps, which were printed in water-colour—"Put them in water; if the colour is 'fast' the stamp is a forgery; if it comes off, leaving a blank piece of paper, the stamp is genuine"!

A famous forgery was put on the market some years ago, the stamp imitated being the One Penny value of the well-known first issue of New South Wales, commonly called "Sydney Views." This stamp was issued in sheets of twenty-five, each repetition of the design being separately engraved on the plate and so giving twenty-five minor varieties; and subsequently the entire plate was re-cut, doubling the number of varieties for the specialist. The forger engraved his fraudulent wares and printed the labels, as were the originals, direct from the plate, in a very good imitation of the ink used in 1850 and on similar paper; and these reproductions, often in pairs, were affixed to old envelopes and cancelled with forged postmarks.

So well executed were these forgeries that suspicions as to their character were not raised until an endeavour was made to ascertain the original positions on the sheet of these desirable (?) specimens: then it was found that the details of design did not tally with those of any of the known varieties, and the career of yet another forgery was brought (somewhat tardily) to an untimely end.