Talk:Mauritius "Post Office" stamps

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philately High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Mauritius This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mauritius.

What exactly is "The stamp was owned by Sri Lankan philanthropist Sir Ernest de Silva" referring to? -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Silva owned the 1 penny orange-red Post Office Mauritius. The amount realized when he sold it has not been verified with a good reference. Such rare stamps often sell at 3 or 4 times their catalog value; All World Stamps today shows the stamp at £450,000. However, the amount to be realized depends on a specific stamp's actual condition, its provenance and reputation, and the vagaries of the market.Fconaway (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration of the 1 penny orange-red has the appearance of a facsimile or forgery. It is certainly different from the stamp de Silva purchased from Hind, as shown by Helen Morgan's Blue Penny Research Companion.Fconaway (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The illustrated stamp definitely is one of many fakes of this issue; I have so noted below the image. Ecphora (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be sure it is a fake? Can that be verified?Fconaway (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. As background, there are multitudes of fakes of both rare and inexpensive stamps. See, e.g., Fernand Serrane, The Serrane Guide; Stamp Forgeries of the World to 1926 (1998) (containing 390 pages of detailed information on early forgeries); Varro Tyler, Focus on Forgeries (1993), who notes that "Some forgeries of inexpensive stamps are so ubiquitous that the copies in general collections far outnumber the genuine ones." Serrane notes that there are "various typographed or lithographed reproductions [of the "Post Office" issues] ... easily identifiable by their kind of impression." Id. p. 234.

Now, to the stamp in question, comparison with the one penny red (which I scanned from David Feldman's auction catalog of Kanai's collection (1993), Lot no. 1, which sold for 1.4 million Swiss Francs plus surcharge (over $1 million US), and which unquestionably is genuine) shows a multitude of differences. These include: the shape of the necks and lower front of the busts, the upper right corners (lobed in the forgery; square in the genuine); the blotches on the face of the fake; the overall detail(blurred and splotchy in the forgery -- probably lithographed and not engraved); detailed and fine in the genuine); the backgrounds (solid in the forgery; finely engraved in the genuine), etc.

But there's one simple and definitive proof. The two stamps are plainly different, but the Kanai red penny is the only unused one penny in existence; the only other known copy was lost in WWII. See Feldman catalogue, p. 29. Ecphora (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be so, but even so the alleged forgery may be a badly scanned image, or it could be a bad scan from one of the proof reprints like this one. we don't know where that image came from. ww2censor (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's hard to believe that a reprint from the original plate could be so bad, but it might be. I'll look for an image of a "genuine" fake. Ecphora (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, as a photographer for more than 25 years, a bad quality photo of a genuine stamp, then digitised badly and (maybe) copied again could after several iterations certainly look like this alleged forgery. so until we can find an image of a known forgery, we should delete it from the article. ww2censor (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However badly scanned, a scan can't create those huge margins that never existed in the true 1847 issue. It is a shame that this poor image is still so often used, while an excellent 'genuine' image exists. See also the (only) pair I have loaded, sold by Jakubek Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are talking about this commons pair of one and two penny stamps: commons:File:1847 BothPost Office Jakubek.jpg. So what exactly is this "Red One Penny" image? It is very weird looking even though supposed to be from a book on the topic. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1859 lithographed (not engraved!) Dardenne issues are indeed very rough looking, and this is probably a print of a genuine stamp. Of course a good scan of the original is needed to make a better guess!

Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done an extensive revision of the article previously titled "Penny Blue" to include both "Post Office" issues and discussion of the subsequent locally produced primitives. Ecphora (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this has been moved to Postage stamps and postal history of Mauritius. Ecphora (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's head and the lettering are all intaglio. Shouldn't this be pointed out?Fconaway (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Ecpphora (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick work! "Intaglio" has another meaning, which is important in comparing the "Post Office" Mauritius stamps with the Penny Black. It is not simply that they have an image of the young queen, facing to the viewer's left. In this respect the stamps are similar, although Wyon's modelling of the head (as seen on his 1837 London medal)[1] was masterful whereas Barnard had little sense of line or sculpted relief. Their striking similarity is in the use of an elegant intaglio image: the letters and the heads are in the white (or "negative") space. This became the conventional presentation in the Penny Red and 2d Blue, and so on, through the first issues of India. Recess printing is involved, to be sure, but only for the details of the relief. It means something different in recess printed issues, where the ink is forced into the recesses and the surface is wiped clean -- almost the opposite procedure of that used for these first stamps.Fconaway (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Every place I looked states that the Mauritius Post Office issues as well as the early British stamps were all printed in intaglio, without any suggestion that a different process was used for parts. See Williams, Fundamentals of Philately, p. 523 n. 94 (Mauritius); Stanley Gibbons, Great Britain: Vol. 1, Queen Victoria (1985) p. 33. Williams doesn't describe any other meaning for intaglio, other than printing from recesses in the plate. See pp. 118-119. The only variants mentioned in the intaglio article are the methods for cutting the plate; however it's done, all the printed features in intaglio come from ink in the recesses. Am I missing something? Ecphora (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The design of the stamp was an intaglio image. That is, the letters and the heads are in the white (or "negative") space while the background is in color.Fconaway (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There's no difference in the printing method itself; it's just whether the artist depicts the image as primarily white on colored background or vice versa. Ecphora (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is shown strikingly by Plates I and II of the book, _Rowland Hill and the Fight for Penny Post_, facing pages 78 and 79, if you happen to have that book available. It became a conventional design feature for many of the early stamps of the British areas.Fconaway (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is now the article title in singular? There are two Mauritius "Post Office" stamps, and this fact is clearly stated in the article lead and throughout the text. The title should be reverted to plural. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a bad new title. ww2censor (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to singular title reverted by an admin request I made. Movers need to read the lede. ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]