In late 1883 or early 1884 (earliest known fiscal cancellation date is 29 December 1883) a very small number (the exact figure is unknown but was probably only a handful of sheets) of the Queensland 2nd sideface 1 shilling mauve was briefly issued with perforation 9.5 X 12 using the Queensland D 9½ Rotary Perforation Machine and the Queensland C Line 12 Perforation Machine. All the other 1 shilling 2nd sideface stamps were perforated using the Queensland C Line 12 Perforation Machine only.
The Queensland D 9½ Rotary Perforation Machine was a single-line machine of the rotary type, being operated by a wheel turned by hand or power. The machine gave large round holes, and as there were 48 holes in 100 mm, 96 holes in 200 mm, and 145 holes in 300 mm, the gauge works out at 9.6 and may be taken as 9½.
The D machine was obtained on 29th May, 1883 (Stanley Gibbons Monthly Journal, Vol. VI., page 157), and was installed in the Government Printing Office, as distinct from the lithographic office, for perforating the counterfoils of cheque books, etc.
According to Basset Hull this machine was only utilised when there was a stress of work on the C machine, and then only for the horizontal lines of perforation, possibly as a measure of control, as the sheets of stamps had to be taken outside the lithographic office to the Government Printing Office. The job was not wholly done at the Government Printing Office for security reasons.
However Edward D. E. van Weenan (1847-1925), writing in the Australian Philatelist, 25 May 1899, p. 112, gives a different account: “Anxious to know the reason of the 9 x 12 perforations, I also made enquiries and found out that the 9 perforating machine was at the time used for cheque books, and was used temporarily, it was surmised, during the repairing of one of the perforating machines. Only two or three sheets of the 1s value were thus perforated.” The flaw in Van Weenan's account is that these stamps were perforated 9.5 and 12, so both machines were used. That would not make sense if one of the machines was being repaired.
Robson Lowe states that “In 1884, to relieve pressure caused by sudden demands, a number of sheets were sent to Port Moresby, where they were perforated at 9.5 horizontally on a machine normally used for perforating cheques. The vertical perforations were done subsequently on the Hughes and Kimber machine gauging 12.” This is incorrect. The machine was NEVER sent to British New Guinea. As Leslie Hausburg noted in Gibbons Stamp Weekly vol 2, 1903, p. 346: “When in Brisbane early this year I went over the Government Stamp Printing Office, and there saw the 9.5 machine, and obtained a pull from it. The machine which was sent to British New Guinea was the older machine which perforated 13, and of which I managed to obtain a pull afterwards.”
The machine was actually sent to the bookbinding department about the same time (October, 1901) as the A machine was sent to British New Guinea, (Australian Journal of Philately, Vol. II., page 104, and the Australian Philatelist, Vol. VIII., page 102.)
Forgeries
As early as 1898 it was realised that this stamp had been forged. The matter was extensively covered in the Philatelic Press of the time and the full-text article that appeared in the London Philatelist, February 1903, pp. 35-38, covering this and other forgeries in some detail is available online here while a shorter article appeared in the London Philatelic Record, February 1892, p. 39 and is available here. Unfortunately no description was given on how this forgery was done or ways to detect it.
From Stanley Gibbons Monthly Journal 31 January 1903, p. 133 came this account from a Brisbane correspondent: “I have seen a specimen of the 1s. perf. 12, worked up with a fine chisel into a very passable imitation of a 9.5 x 12, but this was quite an innocent affair compared with another that was engineered on a sewing machine. I wish I could have got hold of some to send you, but the owners wanted big prices for them on account of their artistic merit."
I found this description on how perforations can be forged: “margins can be added / altered by taking both papers [i.e. the original stamp as well as the paper with the scarcer perforations - I assume for our purposes that this would be a cheap QLD stamp where the existing perforations have been removed and then reperforated 9.5 assuming there is enough space although each margin could be done separately] and feathering the edges together using sizing to attach them together. Sizing is the natural glue that occurs in all paper & is what holds paper together in the first place.”
It is suggested that there are two ways to detect this. One way is that usually these types of grafted fakes can be easily felt with fingertips. The other way is to use watermark fluid on the back of the stamp which can show these joins. Many fakers will also press the fakes in a hydraulic press to smash them flat. This can be seen when using watermark fluid for it penetrates the stamp very slowly as any "sizing" has been destroyed. Using a hydraulic press in this way is done to hide rebacks and added margins but also creases and filled thins." However it has also been suggested to me that most forgers would not bother to graft paper to reperforate a stamp as it is not worth the effort. Instead they will just do a reperforation.
This extract below found on the web on detecting forged perforations covers United States stamps. However as both the US and Queensland issues were perforated using rotary perforation machines the information provided here should assist in detecting the Queensland forgeries as well. However remember that in the United States they used two different rotary perforators when perforating stamps. i.e. when perforating a rectangular stamp the first operator would put it through one way then the second operator would do the other direction with its different spacing. Therefore they didn't need to change the spacing. In Queensland, the rotary perforation machine was used for one direction, then the other direction was done with a guillotine line perforation machine.
“Rotary perforators were used to perforate early U.S. stamps. These machines used a series of perforating wheels with equally spaced pins that would roughly puncture the paper as it was fed through. A private perforating machine uses a 'stroke' perforation method where the pins on a head plate descend vertically through the paper into matching holes in a counter plate. Because of these different methods of perforating stamps, official perforations have a different appearance than private perforations. Official perforation holes are more oval in shape and less clean cut than private perforations. Real perforations normally have tufts of paper fibres extending into the holes that were not cleanly cut away. Also, holes created by the rotary perforating wheel were in the shape of an ellipse or oval rather than a perfect circle. Another characteristic of genuine perforations is that the rows of perforations applied to a sheet of stamps were always parallel. They may have not been always perfectly aligned with the border of the stamp design, but they were parallel. If a row of perforations was slightly askew at the top of a stamp, it would be equally askew at the bottom also.
There are two general categories of private perforating machines. The first category I would label 'crude' and the second I would call 'refined.' A refined reperforator will create holes with the correct size hole (as in diameter) and the correct 'gauge.' The gauge refers to the number of holes per inch. Fortunately, even a 'refined' reperforator will create circular rather than elliptical holes and holes that are also clean cut. So although the size and gauge will be exactly correct, the appearance and shape of some of the holes themselves will not be. A professional reperforator may use tiny cylindrical files to rough up the hole's edges so they don't have such a clean appearance, but they are still distinguishable from real holes in most cases. In a series of real perforation holes the tufts of extending paper fibres are usually in the same relative position in the holes, e.g., left, right, top, bottom, etc. On the other hand, a 'crude' reperforating machine often produces rows of holes that do not form a perfectly straight line. In addition they often do not create holes of the correct size or gauge.”
Other ways to detect forgeries would be by examining the perforations knowing that a rotary perforator will make slightly oblong punches which cannot be duplicated by a vertical punch, which will be how all forgeries must be made. Also, there will be a definite 'flow' to the perforation in the direction of travel of the perforator. There will be long paper fibres left in the direction of travel, and short fibres perpendicular to it. A vertical punch will leave paper fibres the same length in all directions.
So your first test in determining if it is a forgery will be whether the stamp is the right size, not too short or too high. Next tests are whether the perforations are parallel, size of holes, whether clean cut, are they in a straight line and (last test because it is the hardest) do they exhibit rotary perforation characteristics, with a slight oval and paper fibres in the right place.
Here are some examples of this issue. Many of these examples as well as information on this stamp have come from an extensive discussion on this topic on stampboards.com here. Where the stamps are thought to be forgeries I have indicated this.
This is a pull from the original D 9½ Rotary Perforation Machine. All the genuine perforation 9.5 stamps should have perforations looking like this.
This is one of several copies in my possession. It passed the watermark test and is considered to be genuine.
Earliest known usage, 29 December 1883. Courtesy of Dave Elsmore
My 2nd copy. Fiscally cancelled Brisbane. Appears genuine
Lot: 416 x Queensland 1884 Sideface, perf. 9 1/2x12 1/- mauve, unused with part gum; with slight soiling, repaired at right). The vertical sizing and perforations are all wrong, most probably a forgery.
Another copy sourced from the web, again the perforations are wrong, so most likely a forgery.
Sourced from Stampboards.com
-horz.jpg)
6 copies courtesy of Dave Elsmore. The 2nd from right on the bottom row may be a forgery
This example was seen at Premier Postal auction no 99 lot no 1551
A fourth example from my collection with a fiscal cancellation
vSg~~60_12.JPG)
This is a very poorly executed fake seen on Ebay in November 2012. The barred numeral is also fake
Very helpful site.
ReplyDeleteThanks