Bosnia Query - delurking

I'm a long time lurker, who'd like some help - mainly because I don't
trust my eyes.

The stamp in question is the mint Bosnia Herzegovina SG 160 in the middle.

Gibbons refers to a reprint of the 40h (made in 1911) "which can be
recognised by their duller colours, white paper and colourless gum. The
strokes of "4" in the 40h are thinner than in the reprint than the
original."

To my eyes the paper on the 40h mint is the same colour as the 50h which
I've included for comparison and the numeral is the same as the used 40h
which I assume is kosher, but slightly dirty.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160.jpg

looking at the backs of the mint stamps they again look similar.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160-rear.jpg

so is it genuine enough to be expertised?

--
Steve Clark

using a 129Mb SA 6.14 RiscPC}

My vote, FWIW, would be that it is a reprint - based on the thinness of
the diagonal on the "4" compared to your used example.

Regards,
Nick


Steve Clark wrote in
:

I'm a long time lurker, who'd like some help - mainly because I don't
trust my eyes.

The stamp in question is the mint Bosnia Herzegovina SG 160 in the
middle.

Gibbons refers to a reprint of the 40h (made in 1911) "which can be
recognised by their duller colours, white paper and colourless gum.
The strokes of "4" in the 40h are thinner than in the reprint than the
original."

To my eyes the paper on the 40h mint is the same colour as the 50h
which I've included for comparison and the numeral is the same as the
used 40h which I assume is kosher, but slightly dirty.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160.jpg

looking at the backs of the mint stamps they again look similar.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160-rear.jpg

so is it genuine enough to be expertised?

.... I forgot to mention that my own example is a reprint too.

Nick


Nick Bridgwater No@Spam wrote in
. 109.145:

My vote, FWIW, would be that it is a reprint - based on the thinness of
the diagonal on the "4" compared to your used example.

Regards,
Nick

If the color on my monitor is anything like the color
of the stamp, I would also classify it as a reprint.
(Based solely on the illustration in Ferchenbauer.
My copy is also a reprint.)

Jay Carrigan email address on web site
www.jaypex.com


In article . 145, No@Spam
says...

My vote, FWIW, would be that it is a reprint - based on the thinness of
the diagonal on the "4" compared to your used example.

Regards,
Nick


Steve Clark wrote in
:

I'm a long time lurker, who'd like some help - mainly because I don't
trust my eyes.

The stamp in question is the mint Bosnia Herzegovina SG 160 in the
middle.

Gibbons refers to a reprint of the 40h (made in 1911) "which can be
recognised by their duller colours, white paper and colourless gum.
The strokes of "4" in the 40h are thinner than in the reprint than the
original."

To my eyes the paper on the 40h mint is the same colour as the 50h
which I've included for comparison and the numeral is the same as the
used 40h which I assume is kosher, but slightly dirty.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160.jpg

looking at the backs of the mint stamps they again look similar.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160-rear.jpg

so is it genuine enough to be expertised?

The paper of the right hand stamp - seen from the back - has got a
vertical rhomboic structure, that the left hand stamp does not have. It
seems to have a horizontal mesh. So the papers are certainly not the same!

What is the printing method? The 50c looks like typography!?

groetjes, Rein


Op Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:35:36 +0100 schreef Jay T. Carrigan
:

If the color on my monitor is anything like the color
of the stamp, I would also classify it as a reprint.
(Based solely on the illustration in Ferchenbauer.
My copy is also a reprint.)

Jay Carrigan email address on web site
www.jaypex.com


In article . 145,
No@Spam
says...

My vote, FWIW, would be that it is a reprint - based on the thinness of
the diagonal on the "4" compared to your used example.

Regards,
Nick


Steve Clark wrote in
:

I'm a long time lurker, who'd like some help - mainly because I don't
trust my eyes.

The stamp in question is the mint Bosnia Herzegovina SG 160 in the
middle.

Gibbons refers to a reprint of the 40h (made in 1911) "which can be
recognised by their duller colours, white paper and colourless gum.
The strokes of "4" in the 40h are thinner than in the reprint than the
original."

To my eyes the paper on the 40h mint is the same colour as the 50h
which I've included for comparison and the numeral is the same as the
used 40h which I assume is kosher, but slightly dirty.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160.jpg

looking at the backs of the mint stamps they again look similar.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160-rear.jpg

so is it genuine enough to be expertised?






--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:
http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Nov 6, 6:47*pm, Steve Clark wrote:
I'm a long time lurker, who'd like some help - mainly because I don't
trust my eyes.

The stamp in question is the mint Bosnia Herzegovina SG 160 in the middle..

Gibbons refers to a reprint of the 40h (made in 1911) *"which can be
recognised by their duller colours, white paper and colourless gum. *The
strokes of "4" in the 40h are thinner than in the reprint than the
original."

To my eyes the paper on the 40h mint is the same colour as the 50h which
I've included for comparison and the numeral is the same as the used 40h
which I assume is kosher, but slightly dirty.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160.jpg

looking at the backs of the mint stamps they again look similar.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160-rear.jpg

so is it genuine enough to be expertised?

--
Steve Clark

using a 129Mb SA 6.14 RiscPC}

dots on the shield looks different + cross from the left top ornament
is a "cross" in the original and more a letter T in the middle stamp +
the both 4 + the inside frame in the left part is continuous instead
of broken. In my opinion is a forged stamp
best regards, Anton

If you dissect the individual stamps, and crop to the perfs,
then toggle the images rapidly, I think you shall find the design is almost identical.
The triangular void in the "4" in the value tablet is enlarged giving a finer line
to the "4"
I would suggest the thin 4 is the reprint.
I think I can see the differing papers.


"CASACUDOR"
dots on the shield looks different + cross from the left top ornament
is a "cross" in the original and more a letter T in the middle stamp +
the both 4 + the inside frame in the left part is continuous instead
of broken. In my opinion is a forged stamp
best regards, Anton

I'd guess typography also

"rodney" pookiethai@NOSPAM iprimus.com.au wrote in message ...

If you dissect the individual stamps, and crop to the perfs,
then toggle the images rapidly, I think you shall find the design is almost identical.
The triangular void in the "4" in the value tablet is enlarged giving a finer line
to the "4"
I would suggest the thin 4 is the reprint.
I think I can see the differing papers.


"CASACUDOR"
dots on the shield looks different + cross from the left top ornament
is a "cross" in the original and more a letter T in the middle stamp +
the both 4 + the inside frame in the left part is continuous instead
of broken. In my opinion is a forged stamp
best regards, Anton

If the paper is indeed ribbed, then I would assume the 40h is indeed SG160
and the "kosher" example SG160 but ordinary paper.



"Steve Clark" wrote in message ...
I'm a long time lurker, who'd like some help - mainly because I don't
trust my eyes.

The stamp in question is the mint Bosnia Herzegovina SG 160 in the middle.

Gibbons refers to a reprint of the 40h (made in 1911) "which can be
recognised by their duller colours, white paper and colourless gum. The
strokes of "4" in the 40h are thinner than in the reprint than the
original."

To my eyes the paper on the 40h mint is the same colour as the 50h which
I've included for comparison and the numeral is the same as the used 40h
which I assume is kosher, but slightly dirty.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160.jpg

looking at the backs of the mint stamps they again look similar.

http://sjclark.orpheusweb.co.uk/stamps/SG160-rear.jpg

so is it genuine enough to be expertised?

--
Steve Clark

using a 129Mb SA 6.14 RiscPC}

"rodney"
If the paper is indeed ribbed,

With more thought, I think a reprint, that is not ribbed paper,
just the design showing through the back of the stamp, giving
the impression of being ribbed.