- Site Admin
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:14 pm
- Location: Rural Sussex, England
I know the question was not addressed to me but for what its worth I have never seen a postally used cover from this town. I have seen Harbin dealer covers with a Harbin postmark but I don't count those.
- MaoErhShanMap.jpg (87.59 KiB) Viewed 4618 times
Kerr listed (by mistake?) a used price for most of the stamps issued by this town but in the back of the catalog he only listed one cover (which even wasn't in his collection). For Kerr 136.1-17 in his footnote: "Covers are known, Used values are known..." Known where? By whom? Sounds all for me speculative (like "I heard from a friend who knows a collector who met some guy once he had these stamps on cover"). This was the reason I asked George especially to show us a cover.
But not only this missing prove (up to now) these stamps existing on covers would be interesting, I'm wonder as well which type of overprint (for Kerr 136.1.17) is used on cover? Not sure if anyone noticed, the stamps existing in a wide range of similar (but not same) overprints. I found so far at least three types (but seems more existing). So, this very small town not only issued a high amount of stamps, they comes even with a wide range of different types.
I add here a scan of the two bootlet panes (yes, even booklet panes were overprinted) where I pick Type I and Type II. I show the booklet panes to prove for Kerr 136.1-17 was not a combined chop used.
Maybe someone can enlighten me for this issue (When / if they were ever commercial used? How many overprinted types existing or some are bogus?).
I have never seen anything from Mao-erh-shan on what looked to me like a really used cover.
The same for Mao-erh-shan-chan. The only covers from this specific locality I have all have the problems with the date line in the cancellation.
As for all the variations of the chops on Mao-erh-shan, you are giving me an education. I have never seen so much variation.
I have not put either town in one of my exhibits that I can recall.
Not only the inverted date section is strange.
- none of these covers were real used or postally shipped
- many covers exists with used (CTO) stamps but no address
- the front cancel pressed through the backside, clear sign the cover was cancelled without content
- all have this inverted date: 14|08|35
And at the best, here a sample with the a Chinese black box at rear (you can see it fair through the thin paper right below) with a text: "Manchurian Imperial Post" ... really, nobody would use after the surrender of the Japanese such a cover!!
Without headaches we can put 136+137 as bogus.