Page 1 of 2


Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:28 am
by michaelsu76
I noticed that numbers 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 fluoresce very intensely under UV whereas the rest barely react. Can anyone else corroborate this?

Re: Peonies

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:25 am
by Roman
Maybe forgeries ...

Re: Peonies

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:09 am
by michaelsu76
That's my concern. Just wanted to see what everybody else's looked like.

Side by side with the non-fluorescent issues, perforation & print at 20X mag is perfect, gum is perfect. I'd be surprised a forger would waste such tremendous skill on such a low value.

I'm wondering if there were different runs at different times on different peonies that would account for the different fluorescence.

I'll post some scans tonight.

Re: Peonies

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:40 pm
by archiem
Please do post what you can. Not sure the scan will show the UV effect too well, but try.

I too am running into some questions about UV and Chinese stamps. I from time to time go back and look at early issues. I am wondering when high bright paper came into use purposefully, or if it was of such little concern that the authorities used it from time to time, even intermingling it with non high bright papers?

I recently looked at PRC 798a, Yang C106M, the souvenir sheet commemorating the 15th Anniv. of the PRC under UV light. My mint copy and CTO copy (FDC) show differently, both under long wave and short wave UV. Needless to say, I went back over them very carefully and can find no evidence that they are not genuine. But I note in Yang that the release date was pushed back, possibly indicating a printing issue? Note this is after a period during which the PRC was under an embargo due to the Korean conflict. And note the Peony set was also issued in 1964 according to Yang.

Recent published research I did on the R8 set shows there are four different paper types used in that set, and possibly more.

I will now go back and look at any copies of the stamps in the C106 set too. And I will look at any Peonies I might have and see what I find.

Interesting. Hope we continue this discussion.

Re: Peonies

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:40 pm
by Roman
Just another question, how many sheet 8 (opera) were printed (and reprinted)? 20.000 pcs. or do we have maybe 200.000 pcs.

One of many question you better not ask...! :D

Re: Peonies

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:00 am
by archiem
Still have not gotten to your Peonies yet, apologies.

But looked at single stamps, seten stamps, and S/S of the C106, mint, CTO, and used.

My head is spinning. Will tabulate and post what I found here this weekend. At this point just say I am surprised at what I found, and it does not make any sense. Hope some out there will look at theirs too.

Have not forgotten about the Peonies.

Re: Peonies

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:29 am
by michaelsu76
On flatbed
PRC S61.jpg
PRC S61.jpg (1.59 MiB) Viewed 2932 times
Longwave UV
IMG_20180728_014556.jpg (415.7 KiB) Viewed 2930 times

Re: Peonies

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:34 pm
by Wilbur Yu
My set looks the same under UV. I bought them from connie_connie, an eBay seller, last year. Also, I have a few CTO ones and they look the same too. This is a very interesting discovery.

Re: Peonies

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:04 pm
by michaelsu76
My set was from Michael Rogers HK.

Re: Peonies

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:05 pm
by archiem
Surprising is a good term.

I checked mine. #1 had some slight luminesce, but I attribute that to contact with something else. Only one example (used) of five.

#'s 8,9,13,14,and 15 absolutely luminesce. I have looked at mint, CTO and postally used copies. All copies in all categories luminesce brightly under Long Wave UV light, and to a lesser extent under Short Wave UV light. Mine match the ones above, which seem to show the background luminescing rather than the ink used to show the peonies themselves. They do the same on the back side. Might I add that the S/S, S 61M shows the same luminescence front and back except across the heavy inking border at top and bottom.

I would call your attention to an entry in William's Fundamentals of Philately (1990 edition). On page 592 they talk of this being first used in the 1960's, and the first stamp to be issued thus being Australia 1959-64 Regular 11d. My thinking tells me that all this was quite new at this time, and quite possibly some authorities paid little or no attention to the use of tagging material; neither in the making of paper nor in the printing of stamps.

I would suggest that the first person to mention this find write up something for The China Clipper and submit it for publication. The edition that covers PRC philately comes out in November, so most likely goes to press in late September or early October. You are welcome to use my results. I can also send a Excel file with the results tabulated if wanted.

I would like to add that many of my copies show a yellowish color when exposed to Short Wave UV light. Might I refer back to Williams, again on page 592 that "German tagged stamps, called "lumogen," are identifiable by a yellowish overprint to the paper." I am wondering if that is what I am seeing?

Thank you, a very interesting development. Congratulations.