Des Beechey
- STrange1.jpg (106.16 KiB) Viewed 1206 times
- strange2.jpg (105.07 KiB) Viewed 1206 times
Is this a forgery on EBay?
-
Des_Beechey
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:31 am
Is this a forgery on EBay?
Have a look at the front and back image of the card shown below. This is is on EBay at the moment for $14, offered by stephenb5513. It is a Mather divided back card, so produced after 1905. But look at the stamp; it seems to me to be postmarked 1900. And it is postmarked at Launceston, but look at the address of the sender!
Des Beechey
Des Beechey
Re: Is this a forgery on EBay?
One explanation may be the postmark has a date error. This is not common but is a definite possibility .
The date stamp itself might be a useful clue too. Its a type 1C ( Tasmania in full at the bottom).
John Hardinge records two types 1c for Launceston and the late date for 1c(i) is 10 Dec 1903, and if it is this date stamp then its more likely the date on the datestamp is not a date error. 1c(ii) early date is 27 Jan 1905, so if its the second type 1c then its almost got to be a date error. The numerals on the date stamp look like 1900 to me.
I am really not sure but it does look like type 1c(i) to me making the 1900 date much more likely.This cds is fig 100 in vol 1 of the Green Books ( but with a wide code H which is recorded).
One explanation may be the stamp has been added to the card later. Perhaps the original stamp was torn off or fell off . Maybe the stamp was added to make the card look more presentable.
You would have to wonder why someone would go to this trouble for a $14 item, and a damaged card at that.
The other interesting point is the hand-written date on the picture side seems to have had the second numeral in the year over-written? If the stamp was added later then maybe the culprit decided to alter the date on the front accordingly too?
Perhaps you could check to see if the stamp seems to have been added later and if the "1900" in manuscript on the front has been altered ?
I think its quite possible the writer's address was Hobart but it was posted from Launceston . In my experience cards were sometimes carried for some distance before posting.However, why would the card be posted on 19 November, while the writer endorsed the picture side a week later?? Again, if the stamp is a recent addition then that would explain this discrepancy.
Finally, if it did really go to S America why no transit or receipt backstamps on the back? ( unless it was in an envelope - again pointing to the later addition of the stamp ?)
The above is all a bit speculative but something does seem to be amiss.
Pete
The date stamp itself might be a useful clue too. Its a type 1C ( Tasmania in full at the bottom).
John Hardinge records two types 1c for Launceston and the late date for 1c(i) is 10 Dec 1903, and if it is this date stamp then its more likely the date on the datestamp is not a date error. 1c(ii) early date is 27 Jan 1905, so if its the second type 1c then its almost got to be a date error. The numerals on the date stamp look like 1900 to me.
I am really not sure but it does look like type 1c(i) to me making the 1900 date much more likely.This cds is fig 100 in vol 1 of the Green Books ( but with a wide code H which is recorded).
One explanation may be the stamp has been added to the card later. Perhaps the original stamp was torn off or fell off . Maybe the stamp was added to make the card look more presentable.
You would have to wonder why someone would go to this trouble for a $14 item, and a damaged card at that.
The other interesting point is the hand-written date on the picture side seems to have had the second numeral in the year over-written? If the stamp was added later then maybe the culprit decided to alter the date on the front accordingly too?
Perhaps you could check to see if the stamp seems to have been added later and if the "1900" in manuscript on the front has been altered ?
I think its quite possible the writer's address was Hobart but it was posted from Launceston . In my experience cards were sometimes carried for some distance before posting.However, why would the card be posted on 19 November, while the writer endorsed the picture side a week later?? Again, if the stamp is a recent addition then that would explain this discrepancy.
Finally, if it did really go to S America why no transit or receipt backstamps on the back? ( unless it was in an envelope - again pointing to the later addition of the stamp ?)
The above is all a bit speculative but something does seem to be amiss.
Pete
-
Des_Beechey
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:31 am
Re: Is this a forgery on EBay?
Maybe there was a receipt date stamp on the back, in the area which has been torn off? There is a faint part impression just to the right of the torn area with part of a stamp impression.
Des
Des