Unlisted perforation variety on Afghan airmail stamp
Last night I was going through an accumulation of Afghan stamp I acquired during the summer, and I came across with a bizarre finding that contradicts catalog information. As usual I’d be very grateful if blog readers could assist me in nailing this one.
The below design was used in 1960/64 on 3 different airmail stamps. The 75 and 125 Pul values were issued on 1960, and Michel states they exist in 3 different perforations (A:10½, B:imperf and C:11 – as I don’t have these I can’t confirm or deny this). In 1964 an additional value of 5 Afghani was issued, and according to Michel this exist only in perforation of 10½. This one I have had for years, but last night I also found a copy with perforation of 11.
1964 Afghanistan. Douglas DC-6 over Hindu Kush. Michel #844. The normal stamp, and the unlisted perforation variety.
I checked my ancient copy of Yvert, and it claims the perforation on all these stamps is 11 and nothing else….I acknowledge that each catalog lists perforations using different accuracy (Michel usually being the most accurate), but this is definitely frustrating.
Anyway, could somebody please check what recent editions of catalogs (Scott, SG, Yvert) state for the perforation of this stamp. Also if anyone has knowledge or access to specialized catalog of Afghan stamps, I’d be very interested to know any more detailed information.
Till next time, happy collecting!
Join the discussion on this topic below. There are 12 responses already!
Want more?
Sign-up to weekly newsletter and get notified when new articles like the above are published at Stamp Collecting Blog. The email-newsletter is sent to You once a week (during the weekend) and it contains a summary of latest new entries and discussions.
Show that you liked this article - and support Stamp Collecting Blog!
Clicking the Like-button below promotes this article on FaceBook:Clicking the +1 button below promotes this entry on Google and GooglePlus.
Thanks for your support!
Oh, and before I forget, here’s an interesting Afghan stamp related news by BBC. This has been discussed lately around various stamp forums/boards…
Hard life for a postman isn’t?…In Venezuela, believe or not, the local mail takes a month or two to reach the receiver (practically doesn’t exist and probably, never get it)…the international is more or less OK…
re: stamp above…(This is ridiculous ) SG 2009, does’nt show anything similar to your stamp!…(?!?!) are you given the right information: year of emission, etc.?
Hey Keijo!…I’ve just turn the catalogue page, and there it was!
but they say 1960 not 1964 as you indicate!! I was going bananas!… and used is .90 pence. nothing about perf. cause SG is so lazy!…damn!
@Fred… Being a postman must be hard anywhere.
Re, the stamp…. Michel lists it under 1964, no specific date given though. The lower values were issued 1960, so maybe SG is trying to keep things simple….
BTW. Were you checking Stamps of the World (simplifed), or SG part 16 (specialized catalog for Central Asia)? These may display different data.
Specialized?…no,no… SOTW simplified, I can’t afford to buy a book for every corner of the world…this SG catalogue is the most simple thing you get…and it was discarded from the public library…LOL!
Keijo, Scott 2009 has the following data:
75p and 125p, perf. 11 and imperforated (1960)
5 af, perf 10 1/2 and 11 (1963)
All litho and unwmk.
I hope this can help you.
Regards
Rafael
Thanks Rafael. This was highly useful… Hopefully somebody has access to SG pt.16, as it would be interesting to know what it states.
Dear Sir/Madam,
In my humble opinion, and based on a number of factors, the stamp is question is a forgery and the perforations are made by hand (obviously).
Hope that doesn’t come as too much of a blow.
Bill
The way Scott lists it “Perf. 10 1/2, 11″ seems to signify it is a common variety.
It’s possible that the perforation is a sewing machine perf, but that alone doesn’t make the stamp a forgery. They are somewhat common on Asian stamps.
Otherwise the stamp/design appears fully similar. Or am I missing something?
Pretty likely… I’m waiting to see if anyone with access SG pt.16 could drop some details as well… It’s bloody confusing that catalogs contradict. So far I know that Michel states perf to be 10½, Yvert 11, Scott 10½ and 11, SG:???
I asked help on this matter on StampBoards, and got a pretty good response from member mikeg:
So issue solved… Now I’ll simply mail the editors of Michel to get this listed properly in next edition