In your scans some stamps also tile (here to the left, not to the right).
I found all kind of tilts in my doubles, here another sample to the right: For myself I was more focusing one the broken left stroke of "作". This could maybe the way to prove the unlisted stamps were applied later (but right now we can't say if this was in a timely manner of the stamp validation or later on [backdated]). It seems the chop got exactly here a damage. Please check the 5/20$ overprint in your 2nd scan. This possible small free gap may an early stage of the damage (but speculative). We need to study more stamps I would say. If we can find the broken "作" for other 5$ overprints the existente of the unlisted stamps are much more possible, if not we stuck until we getting more information.
In a direct compare the unlisted stamps are very (maybe too) close to the genuine overprint as they were forgeries. If the unlisted stamps were applied by a fake overprint, the efforts to create such a virtual "perfect" fake chop is very high. Against the thesis the unlisted stamps are forgeries also may just stand fact, that they are rare and hard to find.
If I look at just these last three surcharged booklets, the one on the viewers left is not surcharged with the same ink.
It is thicker, more clearly applied and is, if made from the same devise, earlier. The other two show many differences, one of which is the broken "tso." I can make a list of them.
I strongly believe that Simon is correct in saying the older chops seen for the two values seen in the older collections
Now the question is, when and how was the second set of surcharges made? I have many theories but that is all they are: guesses.
Now I want to clarify something. When I use the word "unissued" I mean stamps not produced in all likelihood in the original printing made available at the postal counter for sale and application on covers, forms, etc. But they may have been made as a favor for a single customer. Or it could be that they discovered they did not have a big enough piece to apply the surcharge to and use, so those were keep somewhere else, and at the bottom of the drawer.
It is also possible that they were made to "round out" a printing to have the required number of stamps on hand at the counter.
Finally, stamps are usually overprinted in sheets or half sheets, and as they are made by selecting just the right number of sheets of each kind to fulfill the required number they would need for use. As the sheets and pieces get used, I would assume they would start with those they had the most of. When brought to the drawer at the counter, they were probably place with the least plentiful at the bottom and so on upwards.
So the "unissued" can mean "rare" as Roman suggests.
Further, one reason why some sets are seen with only a few values used on cover again and again is that they never got past the top two sheets at the top of the pile before they had to stop using that chop.
Please remember that when stamps were prepared for use, there was a war going on!! In some cases had far too many sheets or pieces overprinted than they would ever need.
Finally, we must remember that these overprints were placed on stamps of Manchoukuo which had different printings, with new inks, with new gums, etc. These facts may be of great value in determining what is good and what is not.
May I please add that very few booklet panes I have seen are common.
But the most important point about known panes is that very few of those I have seen exist with more than one perforation type. If they are known perforated at the bottom edge, other genuine ones are likely to all be that way.
Please remember too, that just as with coils, we must be very careful that sheet stamps can be trimmed to create "booklets."
I have also seen Mukden sets of 27 made with some genuine overprints, and some counterfeit types.
I have seen this done with only a few other sets.
In a few cases, such as the chung-hua-min-kuo overprints of Cin-chou and Chang-chun very often get mixed up.
In those cases the inability to properly tell them apart is the culprit.
With errors such as inverted overprints, new additions will have to be examined very carefully, just as we do booklets.
I keep booklet covers with no stamps in them too, as they can sometimes be helpful.
The Molishevy covers were produced within a few months AFTER stamps on them were genuinely acquired at post offices.
They are only the EKU in a few cases where postally mailed covers do not exist.
We should carefully record the ink-paper-gum combinations of known original stamps used for genuine overprints.
There should not be much variance there.
We must leave NOTHING we know to go unrecorded.
Perhaps when I am done with my catalog I should make all that information known.
is a good question if the booklet panes were made later for collectors (like the inverted Mukden overprints)? For some I may have this suspicious. Fact is: you rarely can find used booklet pane stamps on commercial covers at all and between us, I think there was never any practical need to overprint booklet panes (same story I can tell for the first North East Mao booklet panes).
Well, is practically not possible to a fake a booklet panes (same for the NE booklet panes) out of a regular stamp sheet, so I do not worry here. Please apologize that I don't post here in detail why this is not possible.
I have many not listed booklet panes by Kerr ... I have no idea why they exists. Like few more values for the set Kerr 30.47, etc.
- Site Admin
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:14 pm
- Location: Rural Sussex, England
I agree, you could not make a convincing MLO booklet pane from a sheet of stamps. It might fool someone unfamilier with Manchukuo booklet panes, but not anyone who collected this area.
The simple answer for why they were made is surely commerce, what other answer could there be?. Stamp collecting was a huge hobby in the 1940's and serious money was changing hands. Most of the people reading this will have started in the 40,s 50's, or early 60's.
This does not bother me at all - so long as the overprinting is contemporary with the period. If this is the case it is all part of the fascinating development of the region in a period of change and unrest. People still had to eat and to do that they needed something to sell.
You have wondered here "why are there so many booklets about?"
Your answers are: commercial interest, and starving postal workers?
Is it true that there were actual Manchurian customers who would buy these things?
Were the postal workers actually starving? How do we know that?
Could there be other reasons?
- full booklets does not exists, only panes
- many unlisted panes (not in Kerr) exists
- ~99% of all booklet panes does not exists commercial used
Why only booklet panes exists? I guess the answer of this question solve the the mystery of the overprinted booklet panes!
I do have two complete booklets from Mukden, one has a cover and the other does not.
I have most of the panes Kerr lists with the same overprint or surcharge as the sheet stamps.
The ones Kerr lists that I do not have are in the Hock collection. The same is true of them: the chops used are the same as on sheet stamps.
As for postal use, I have seen very few stamps with the straight edges or pieces of panes on any cover.