Forgeries (or reprints) of Ajman stamps

» Email » Print
» Add comment

It’s the last day of my summer holidays, and I’ve spent it with one of my favorite topics: the stamps of Sand Dunes. I know, I know… They’re ‘wallpaper’ stamps. But trust me, they do have their appeal. If yesterday’s topic of unlisted perforation varieties on stamps of Dubai, stamps didn’t get You measuring some perforations, then hopefully this post about Ajman stamps does. I assume the following stamps are either forgeries or reprints (by issuing agency). The common characteristics for all is that they are of perforation other than stated on the catalogs.

Scouts

Let’s kick off this blog with some scout stamps. I’m sure many have seen these stamps as they are likely one of the most common stamps of Ajman:

1971 Ajman. Scouts.  Likely a forgery.

1971 Ajman. Scouts. Likely a forgery.

The sheet appears OK on quick looks, but I’m willing to bet it’s a fake. The stamps are perforated 10×10, whereas Michel states the perforation should be 14½. In addition, the paper is very different from regular stamp paper: it’s very thick and glossy. Also the design is much blurrier when compared to real stamp, as if the stamps were printed from copy:

1971 Ajman. Real and fake scout stamp side-by-side. Click for larger (high resolution) image.

1971 Ajman. Real and fake scout stamp side-by-side. Click for larger (high resolution) image.

Antique mosaics & wallpaintings

Moving further, I have this set of stamps with nice looking antique mosaics & wall paintings:

1972 Ajman. Mosaics and wallpaintings. Likely a fake strip-of-four.

1972 Ajman. Mosaics and wallpaintings. Likely a fake strip-of-four.

Again, on quick looks these may appear like the real thing, but the looks can deceive. According to Michel perforation should be 13½, not 11 as it is with the above strip.

According to Michel (and few other sources) the above stamps were never released in strip format like above. The two leftmost stamps are from triptych (sets-of-three joined stamps) Michel #2000-2002, the 3rd stamp is from triptych #2410-2412, and rightmost stamp is from triptych #2454-2456. There’s no way they could have been issued together in strip like this originally.

In addition, the paper differs. Once again, it’s thick and glossy. Interestingly, the print quality looks much better than with the original (see below pic).

1972 Ajman. Mosaics. Michel #2000A and 2002A, CTO-used.

1972 Ajman. Mosaics. Michel #2000A and 2002A, CTO-used.

So that things would not be too easy, I have some of the ‘mosaics & wallpanintings’ stamps also in perforation 13. As the difference in perforation is much smaller, they are not so obvious fakes.

Flowers

Finally, something a bit different from the “Flowers” series of 1972:

1972 Ajman. Aster. Michel #2140A. On the left perforation 14, and on the right perforation 11¼.

1972 Ajman. Aster. Michel #2140A. On the left perforation 14, and on the right perforation 11¼.

Once again, these two stamps are clearly of different perforation. However, unlike the previous items, both are on similar (regular) paper. In addition, the print quality between these two is very similar (though the rightmost / perf 11¼ stamp appears a bit unfocused). Based on gut feeling I would say that the latter is a reprint of original issue. Nevertheless, that is my speculation, not a fact.

Closing words

Now, the big question is ‘what are these’? Forgeries? Reprints? Something else? I really don’t know… All I know is that they are VERY plenty (and easy to acquire by accident/knowingly).

As usual, happy collecting!

You might also be interested of related posts about , .

Show that you liked this article

Support the blog - become a premium member for 12.40€!

By joining Stamp Collecting Blog Premium membership programme, You can support this blog and quarantee that articles like this (and 300+ others already available) remain freely accessible to every stamp collector. Additionally, you can download some of the blog contents as downloadable eBooks (pdf) and You can opt out of ads for period of one year. Read more and sign up now!

Subscribe to free newsletter

Click here to subscribe the weekly newsletterSign-up to SCB newsletter and get notified when new articles like the above are published at Stamp Collecting Blog. The email-newsletter is sent to Your inbox one to four times a month, and it contains a summary of new entries and discussions on the blog.

Your email address:


There are 7 responses for this entry, click to read the responses.

Leave a new response

Doubleclick here and type your response...

All responses are moderated before publishing. Responses should be respectful of other voices in the discussion, and remain on topic (all buy/sell messages will be deleted). Stampcollectingblog.com reserves the right to edit or delete comments that violate these policies. If You want to share an picture/photo, simply write the entire URL of the photo in the comments field.

And finally... A small IQ test. Please click the picture that is NOT a postage stamp. Then press the "Submit Comment" button below images.

Stamp image Stamp image Stamp image Stamp image

All original content and images of this blog is under copyright protection; any kind of reproduction of full contents without permission of the owner is hereby denied. All Rights Reserved © Keijo Kortelainen, 2009-2014. All photos of stamps in this blog are enlargements or reductions of original stamps from private collection of author of the blog (unless otherwise stated). The designs of stamps and postmarks are copyright of issuing postal authorities and their designers. The comments / discussion on this blog are copyright of their retrospective authors, and represent the opinion of their authors. Catalog numbers (Scott, Michel, SG etc) are the copyrighted property of their publishers. | See our privacy policy