JOBI PHILATELIC SERVICES
The discovery of this counterfeit
was announced in Linn’s Stamp News, Vol.
75, # 3831, APR 1, 2002.
An extract of this article appeared
in Postal Stationery, Journal of the
United Postal Stationery Society, Vol. 44, #3, MAY-JUN 2002
Counterfeit Entire of the 1860 1-cent blue,
Bill Lehr, APS# 165352, UPSS
# 5469
Copyright: December 20, 2006
INTRODUCTION
We are all aware of the star
die forgeries (second Nesbitt printings, 1860).
Almost all of the literature agrees that these forgeries are only known
to exist as cut squares.
HISTORICAL REFERENCE
The one dissenting opinion
is found in The American Journal of
Philately, Second Series, Vol. XII,
Henry L. Calman, editor, published by the Scott Stamp & Coin Co.,
Ltd., New York, 1899. Henry Collin and
Henry L. Calman describe counterfeits of the 1860-61 issue in the article “A
Catalogue for Advanced Collectors of Postage Stamps, Stamped Envelopes and
Wrappers.” They provide this warning on
pages 247-248:
“There is a dangerous counterfeit of the
1-cent of this issue which is sometimes found on entire envelopes. The paper is laid but not watermarked. This counterfeit may be recognized by the
stars at each side of the oval which have six points instead of five.”
ANNOUNCING….
The discovery of a forged
entire of the 1860 Nesbitt 1c blue Franklin star die, UPSS die type 12, Scott
type U9. This forgery is printed and embossed on diagonally laid paper
without watermark.
Ken Lawrence, philatelic writer and
“It's a wonderful discovery.”
Rob Haeseler, Linn’s senior editor:
“…a very significant discovery. It appears to be the only known fake U.S 19th century entire.”
DISCOVERY
DATELINE January 2001: I was
viewing auction lots on eBay. I
inspected a lot that was offered as a genuine Scott# U19 mint entire. The stamp imprinted was obviously not genuine. Deciding that this was an interesting piece
worth further study, I placed my bid and waited. Competition was light and I was the
successful bidder.
DETAILS
The stamp is an obvious
forgery (the stars have six points instead of five) of UPSS die type 12. The paper appears to be either manila or
buff. Comparison of the forgery to
several genuine entires and wrappers of this issue (courtesy of Rob Haeseler)
provides no paper match (but, then, the genuine samples did not match each
other, either). Both the buff and the
manila papers used for these issues are known to exist in an immense variety of
shades and qualities of papers. Genuine
entires are known on salmon, creamy buff, fawn, yellowish-buff, amber buff and
numerous shades of each. Louis G. Barrett, in his article
The paper of the genuine
issues typically exhibits cross-lines from 25 to 30 mm apart. The cross-lines on this forgery measure 25 mm
apart and are angled at 34 degrees from the bottom fold. The lesser laid lines are spaced 1.5 mm
apart.
A scan of the front is shown
in Figure 1. Front faults include pencil
notations at UL (5 and
?) and at LL (U19 and i or j. gale.);
a small spot of foxing occurs near the stamp impression; there is minor
creasing at LL. There is typical minor
soiling along the top fold. Minor tears (both under 3mm in length) occur at
each end of the top fold.
A close-up of the stamp
impression is shown in Figure 2. There
are nine recognized die varieties of the genuine stamp. Five of the nine varieties exhibit the common
characteristic of the bust pointing between the “A” and the “G” of
“POSTAGE”. This forgery shares that
characteristic.
The genuine
stamp measures 20 by 24 mm. This forgery
measures 21 by 25 mm.
Two types of die 12
forgeries are recognized. The type 2
forgery, which exhibits poorly done five pointed stars, does not concern us
here.
Type 1 forgeries of UPSS die
12 are described as follows: printed and embossed on white or on buff wove
paper instead of on diagonally laid paper; stars in the borders have six points
instead of the five points for the genuine; the upper lip of Franklin does not
protrude on the genuine, and the tip of the nose is rounded on the genuine; the
serif at the base of the “T” of “CENT” extends further to the left than to the
right on the forgery. The lettering is
thicker and more uniform in the genuine.
Designs matching the genuine design but printed on buff, manila or
orange vertically or horizontally laid paper are from
wrappers.
This stamp imprint matches
the description of the type 1 forgery (except perhaps for the upper lip). Additionally we see: the “O” of “ONE” is low and close to the
inner frame line; the “C” of “CENT” is short and far from the inner frame line;
the “O” of “ONE”, the “C” of “CENT”, the “U” of “U.S.”, the “O” and the “G” of
“POSTAGE” are narrow and oval in shape; top strokes of the “E” of “ONE” and of
the “E” of “CENT” are heavier than the bottom stroke; the “S” of “U.S.” and the
“S” of “POSTAGE” are narrow; spacing of the “O” to “S” and of the “T” to “A” of
“POSTAGE” is wide. Regardless of the
details, the six pointed stars are the most obvious trait of this forgery.
Figure 3: Reverse of the forgery
The reverse is shown in
Figure 3. What appears to be adhesive
bleed from assembly is apparent along the join of the left side flap. Overall size of this entire is 82mm high by
150mm wide. This matches the height of a
UPSS size 7 but the width of a UPSS size 8 entire. The top flap is 50mm high and is distinctly
tongue shaped. Gum appears to have been
applied by hand as on the genuine. The entire is low-backed with both side
flaps over the bottom flap. The side
flaps do not meet, have distinctly rounded points and are somewhat triangular
overall. Genuine entires of this series
all show the side flaps overlapping. The
bottom flap has a wide, curved point.
The knife does not match any knife depicted in Bartels U.S. Stamped Envelopes, fifth edition, Volume II, Prescott
H. Thorp, Netcong, N.J., 1943 nor in Cutting
Knifes of the 19th & 20th Century Envelopes and
Wrappers of the United States of America, Actual Size Illustrations, published
by the United Postal Stationery Society, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999. The smoothness of all edges tends to indicate
that this envelope was die-cut rather than skillfully hand made.
SPECULATION
Could this forgery actually
be a counterfeit created to defraud
the United States Post Office?
It is mistakenly believed
that these entires were included in the demonetization of the pre-Civil War
stamp issues. There has been speculation
that forgeries of entires may have been created to defraud the U.S. Post Office
Department during the exchange of demonetized stamps and stamped envelopes for
the new issues. Demonetized and
exchanged or illegally used, either way the USPOD would have lost some
revenue. If any Postally used copies of
this forgery exist, they would support this supposition.
However, we learn in the Thorp-Bartels Catalogue of the Stamped
Envelopes and Wrappers of the United States, Prescott Holden Thorp, editor
and publisher, Netcong, N.J., 1954, on page 29:
“The -cent envelopes and wrappers were continued in use and manufactured
until 1870 when George H. Reay was awarded the contract.” The Confederate States did demonetize this
issue in 1861. The Catalog of the 19th Century Stamped Envelopes and Wrappers
of the United States, second edition, Allen Mintz, editor, United Postal
Stationery Society, Norfolk, VA 2001, page 8) tells us that both the 1-cent and
the 3-cent combination dies of the Second Series (the Nesbitt 1860 printings),
were continued in use until the rate change of 1863. The 1-cent envelope being limited to
intracity mail and to circulars was not a concern for misuse.
At this date it is speculated
that this is the only counterfeit entire of the 1-cent blue star die known to
exist. It is further speculated that it
is the only counterfeit entire of any 19th Century issue known to
exist. Hopefully, this discovery will
prompt other collectors and hobbyists to reexamine their own collections.
NOTE
A similar but genuine
entire, UPSS die 12 type 8, printed on un-watermarked,
diagonally laid buff paper, size 8, is listed as UPSS # 30a-0 with a 2001
catalog value of $1,000.00.
UPDATE
July, 2002: A second, mint, copy of the counterfeit has
been reported by a collector in
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ken
Lawrence for his article in the American
Philatelist that alerted me about this forgery and for his assistance in
referring this item to the attention of Rob Haeseler.
Rob
Haeseler for sharing his expertise on
Dan
Undersander for his scholarship and articles on the Nesbitt printings and their
forgeries.
