• Topic Title

  • Topic description
general stamp collecting discussions
#7 by roka01
Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:08 am
As it is evident from the Michel Deutschland-Spezial Katalog, Memel stamp Mi. 41 never has dot in the letter "T". Mi. 40, however, has. To differentiate Mi. 40 and Mi. 41, the letter "p" or "P" in "pfennig" or "Pfennig" helps. In case of Mi. 40 "p", in case of Mi. 41 "P" can be seen in the overprint. Normally Mi. 41 never occurs with dot in the letter "T". Enclosed I show one Mi. 41 stamp with dot in "T". According to my oppinion this is a falsh overprint or an additional dot is in the real overprint. At careful examination of the overprint "FLUGPOST" appears to be shiny, not like on the other stamps of this series (Mi.40 to Mi.46). Consequently, my oppinion is that the enclosed stamp has a false overprint, it is a fake. I suppose somebody made this false overprint to produce Mi. 40II (which is a high value stamp), but did not recognize the letter "P" on the stamp (instead of "p").I would appreciate your comments. László
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
#16 by Tobias Huylmans
Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:22 pm
Dear roka01,

could you post a high-resolution picture of this stamp?
It might be easier to judge, it's almost impossible to state anything using this picture as reference.
#18 by Audrius
Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:49 pm
László is having problems with file resizing and uploads. Here is his high resolution image.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
#30 by roka01
Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:28 am
Hí Tobias,

As you requested earlier Audrius posted a Memel Mi.41 of higher resolution, and I did the same. I would appreciate your comment on this apparently interesting stamp.

#31 by Tobias Huylmans
Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:57 am
hi roka01,

sorry that i answer this rather late:

This airmail issue was printed at the printing shop "F.W. Siebert".

The first delivery of those stamps came into sale in July 1921. The first
printing was done without the dot in the "T". The second printing (30/31. July 1921)
of the Mi.-Nr. 40 and 41 was carried out because the printing stone was already
heavily worn. For this second printing the printer added the dot in the "T". During the second
printing, after the major part was printed, some letters were getting damaged more and more - as a result the printer rengraved the stone while in the printing machine. The dots in the "T" did mostly dissapear already. Due to this reengraving we have the Mi.-Number: 41 III.

I hope this helps to clear things up
#32 by roka01
Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:28 pm
Hí Tobias,

Thank you for the very detailed and clear explanation.In the Michel Deutschland-Special Katalog the situation is not clearly described. In the case of No.41 the Katalog indicates second printing (31.7.21.). There was no first printing of No.41? It is not mentioned in the Katalog.
In the case of stamps No. 40 and 43, in the case of the second printing "mit Punkt in T (Pl.II)" is written. In case of No. 41, however, the date of the second printing (31.7.21) is written wirhout "mit Punkt in T (Pl.II)". Why is it so? This is what made me confused.
If I understand your comments well, No.41 is always second printing with the dot in T and No. 41 III is second printing without dot. Is it correct?

Another question. How can you differentiate No. 40 Iy (ohne Punkt) and No, 40 II Pf III (ohne Punkt).

Kind regards:
#33 by Tobias Huylmans
Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:08 am
Dear Roka,

you are correct.

Yes of course it is possible to distinguish between Mi.-Nr. 40Iy and 40II PF III - you can see it because parts of the letters are reengraved and not shaped correctly.

Kind Regards
#39 by roka01
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:34 pm
Dear Tobias,

Thank you again for your valuable comments. One thing is still not clear to me. In the Michel Katalo for no.41 the date of the second issue (printing) is given, the 1st one is not mentioned. Why? Ther was no 1st printing of this stamp?I enclose two additional items, the stamp No.98 is particularly interseting. I would appreciate your comments.

Kind Regards,roka01
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
#40 by roka01
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:45 pm
Here is No.78
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.