Armenia? Azerbaijan? Georgia? Romania? Russia? Ukraine? ... We Need Experts!

At the back of every Michel catalogue, you will find a list of Experts accredited by the Bundes Philatelischer Prüfer [BPP]. For German stamps alone, there are dozens of Experts - some of them specialists in just a few stamps. For other countries, there is normally at least one Expert. For the countries listed in my title there are none.

There are, of course, some recognised Experts for these areas and others associated with them, including members of the AIEP [International Association of Philatelic Experts]. Mikulski was the most important of these, but he no longer signs because he has sold his Reference collections.

But it's really the BPP which matters. It's the best organised and the most systematically rigorous and reliable, with clear and public rules which you can find in the back of a Michel catalogue. In comparison, some other national organisations which claim to offer expertising services are simply not reliable or reliable only for a few areas. Some of these organisations have been prone to laxness or scandals.

Collectors in the areas in which I specialise should be pleading with the BPP to look for potential Experts and train them for the task. In the case of Ukraine, Dr Seichter, John Bulat and before him Kobylanski were all BPP accredited. Now there is no one. I don't think there has ever been anyone for Transcaucasia. There have been BPP Experts for Poland ( for example, Jungjohann), Russia and Soviet Union (in these cases, not always good choices) but now there are none. Now that Heimbüchler has reached the BPP retirement age, the same is true for Romania.

It does make life difficult for both collectors and dealers. Let me use the example of Ukraine. Here are some stamps I want to sell: a block of 4 mint 10/7 kopeck stamps with an overprint which is "obviously" Podillia and two used 10/7 stamps with overprints which I think are the same. I have put the mint stamps close to the used stamps, but they are not attached to the Money Transfer fragment:

Now in the case of Podillia you have a choice of over 60 handstamp types and sub-types - quite enough work for one dedicated BPP expert! I think that the 10 / 7 stamps are overprinted with Type 13c (Bulat's Type 44). I get to this conclusion by looking at the illustrations in the catalogue and by referring to one stamp I am holding for reference, the 1 kopeck shown at the top. This stamp has XIIIc written on the back in Zelonka's handwriting and Ron Zelonka usually knew what he was doing. Ideally, I would like a block of stamps with 13c so that I could see variations caused by inking and pressure. But I don't have one - other than the 10/7 block shown here. The problem  is that 13c is not a common stamp (see the Bulat listing 2001 - 2013 where only four stamps are priced, all the others being - - cases).

If you ask how I know that the stamps have genuine overprints, then I have to say that it's a lot to do with the ink and the fact that the fragment of Money Transfer and the cancellations on it are pretty clearly genuine.

But there are two reasons I would like to send my 10 / 7 stamps to an Expert.

First, there are several handstamp types very similar to 13c so I would like a second Opinion. It's not always like this - some handstamp types are unambiguous and I am quite happy to judge them - see previous Blogs about Podillia. 

Second, if these stamps are 13c then they have significant catalogue values in Bulat: $35 each for the mint stamps and unpriced - - [rare] for the used stamps. But if I am going to ask clients to pay  a significant amount for this little group - and many others like it for other sub-types - then they should expect something more than my claim that these are indeed 13c's. They deserve an Expert's opinion. Even if these stamps were already signed Dr Seichter BPP or Bulat BPP it would not help very much because neither of those experts routinely pencilled identifications on the backs of stamps when they signed them. The signature indicates the overprint is genuine without saying which overprint it is....

So there you are. Over to the BPP!

Stamps of Ukraine: Valuing and Pricing - Seichter, Bulat and the Future

How much are classic Ukrainian stamps worth and what should we pay for them?

Most serious collectors now start from John Bulat's Catalogue, published in 2003 but based on a manuscript worked on for decades previously. Leave aside the many typographical errors and there are three main areas worth thinking about.

First, the very different treatment of Trident overprints and West Ukraine overprints.

For Tridents, excepting one or two isolated instances which may be mistakes, Bulat goes up to valuations of $300 after which he makes frequent use of the - - system to signal "Too Rare to Call". Bulat's[ $ ]300 is simply Dr Seichter's top value of 600 [ DM ] in his 1966 Sonder-Katalog, divided by two. After that, Seichter also uses the - - system.

But for West Ukraine, Bulat goes up to $30 000 and makes very little use of the - - system.

Now if we simplify and reckon Bulat's lowest price as $1 for both Ukraine and West Ukraine, we have a range for West Ukraine 100 times wider than for the Tridents.(* See footnote) Why? It's certainly not because of rarity: many Tridents are as rare as the rare stamps of West Ukraine. It's certainly not to do with marking down "philatelic" productions - with the exception of the Kolomyia Registration stamps, the stamps of Western Ukraine are all philatelic productions.  It does have a lot to do with prices which can be achieved: Bulat's $30 000 was comfortably exceeded in the Zelonka sale for the stamp to which it relates (Bulat # 65) and no Trident stamp has recently sold in widely-advertised auctions for even 10% of that and very few for more than 1%.

As far as Tridents are concerned, the current position is very much like that for Zemstvos before the Fabergé sale of 1999. Before then, no one would pay more than a few hundred dollars for a single Zemstvo stamp. That ceiling has now been completely removed. The Trident situation will only change when collectors realise that the ranges 1 - 300 and 1 - 30 000 are pretty much self-fulfilling prophecies.

Second, the validity of relative valuations

In valuing Tridents, Bulat closely follows Seichter, generally dividing by two. Now Dr Seichter was valuing Tridents as far back as 1940 when he published his Spezialliste der Briefmarken der Ukrainischen Volksrepublik. Basically, the relative valuations we use were established over 70 years ago. That means that they take no account of (1) destruction and loss, which is never even-handed, whether it results from war, flood, fire or collector carelessness; (2) discoveries in archives or dealer remainder stocks or collector hoards - things which are also not likely to be balanced. As a result, we all have the experience of being able to obtain stamps with high Bulat valuations quite easily and other ones with low valuations with great difficulty. After 70 years, it is time to examine the relative valuations again. To give just one example, though the Zelonka sale has released some onto the market, just try finding the Kyiv 1 Special Types (Bulat 109 - 45) even those with valuations below $10. (And just in case you ask, I have none in stock).

Third, the relation of a Bulat $ to an actual price

Here there seems to be a divergence between Europe and the USA. When we are talking about individual Retail prices (for example, for stamps on a Wants List), American collectors are still hoping to pay about 50 cents for a Bulat dollar and sometimes they may find stamps at that price. Collectors in Europe are willing to pay more - a dollar or sometimes a €uro for a Bulat dollar - and so in Auction they are more likely to take the choice items. In my experience, most of the really common stamps (under 50 cents in Bulat) remain so common that no one should pay more than ten or twenty cents for them. But once you get above something like Bulat $10, there are many hundreds of listed stamps which are actually quite hard to find and where a real dollar for a Bulat dollar is a bargain.

__________
* Bulat goes down to 10 cents for Tridents and 25 cents for Western Ukraine, so technically the range is much wider. (I am struggling with the maths!)

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Katerynoslav Type I Tridents: Varieties

Above are some forged Trident overprints. All have the large red Soviet guarantee on the reverse which Alexander Epstein identifies as a forgery dating from the 1950s or 1960s. On the example I have chosen to turn over, both the Trident showing through and the forged guarantee mark appear to have been struck from the same ink pad.

The forgeries are not very impressive but they all seem to be attempts at Katerynoslav I with an emphasis on colour varieties. Now, it's true that colour varieties on Katerynoslav I Tridents are known and listed. Bulat offers the following:

1 kopeck perforated with violet overprint $50 mint unpriced used

3 kopeck perforated with violet overprint, - - mint and - - used

5 kopeck perforated with violet overprint, unpriced mint [maybe a typo for - - ]  - - used

10 kopeck with red overprint $50 mint $100 used

1 kopeck imperforate with violet overprint $35 mint - - used

Of these, those on the 1 kopeck can be found mint (though I have none in stock at present: see Lot 88 in the Corinphila sale of Ron Zelonka's collection for an illustration) and so can those on the 10 kopeck, also mint. On the latter, the ink is very distinctive:

The mint copy on the right is signed Dr Seichter - I have chosen this copy with an ink smudge to emphasise the colour of this overprint.In the Ron Zelonka collection there were significant quantities of this stamp ex-Seichter including two blocks of 25 sold as a single Lot (Lot 90 - illustrated in the catalogue). However, the damaged used stamp on the left is rare. It is from the Philipp Schmidt collection and was seen and OKd by Dr Seichter.

The 3 and 5 kopeck are much more problematic. I am holding the two stamps below but would hesitate to sell them. They are both plausible as Katerinoslav I Tridents but completely different in style to the 1 kopeck and 10 kopeck overprints:

On the 5 kopeck I cannot offer an interpretation of the cancellation but on the 3 kopeck it is clearly EKATERINOSLAV in both cases.

INFORMATION  FROM ALEXANDER EPSTEIN ADDED 15 November 2012:

Alexander Epstein (Tallinn) provides the very useful images above. They show violet Katerynoslav I Tridents on used stamps - and both stamps have cancellations in violet from LYUBIMOVSKI POST. This suggests that a Trident handstamp was sent to Lyubimov where the violet overprints were then made. Note the fine, sharp style of the overprint which can also be seen on this block from the Zelonka collection. These overprints are not at all like the violet ones I illustrated above. It does look from this block as if this was a handstamp with five positions - see how position 5 is dropped a little in each row:

To make matters more complicated, Bulat lists "Special Katerynoslav Types" which are basically single handstamps in the style of Katerynoslav I (Bulat 844 - 854). They are all applied in black and as with Kyiv II single handstamps you should be looking for multiples to confirm that a single handstamp is being used. Unfortunately, these Special Types appear to be rare (only two are priced by Bulat, at $150 and $250)  I have put aside the two stamps below as possible examples of Bulat  852 but I don't think they can both be examples. The left hand stamp is signed UPNSZelonka (don't know why he signed it) and the right hand stamp has a small Soviet guarantee mark in violet - which would be unusual for any kind of ordinary Trident, so I think there is something going on here - I am just not sure what. These could be perfectly normal Katerynoslav I Tridents:

Apologies for the complicated Blog.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Very, Very Difficult Local Tridents: Lubashivka

I promise that this is the third and last Blog in this short series on Local Tridents. And I warn you that you may need a strong coffee (or something even stronger) to get through to the end ... [ But the good news is that this Blog has been corrected on 19 October 2012 and now makes more sense :)]

You know there are going to be problems about Lubashivka when you try to spell it. Dr Seichter tries both LUBASCHEWKA and LJUBASCHEWKA. Dr Ceresa sticks with LIUBASHIVKA and John Bulat with LUBASHIVKA. I follow Bulat here but reckon that the Imperial postmark would have read LIUBASHEVKA (this is what I transliterate from the late Gary Combs' Imperial postal place names list - I can't reproduce the original Cyrillic here).

Rather more importantly, no one agrees what the Lubashivka Trident looks like:

At the top Dr Seichter shows us a stamp, or rather a photograph of a stamp, which is reproduced in Dr Ceresa's publication on the Special Trident Issues (Plate CDXCIX). Underneath is Dr Ceresa's enhanced copy of this photograph - he has drawn in the lines of the trident so we can see them. Next comes John Bulat's design (page 128 of his Handbook) followed by Svenson's 1932/5 catalogue illustration. Then there is a random illustration which Dr Seichter has on his album page. Then comes a Seichter drawing based on another stamp. Finally, there is John Bulat's illustration for an "Unknown" type at page 137 of his book.

Well, even a casual glance should indicate that our authors are not in agreement. Does the central spike balance on the top of the base cap with a horizontal line (Bulat's first illustration) or is it pinched in (Svenson's illustration) or is the space between base cap and spike open? These are major differences!

On this question, Forgers also disagree but the majority opt for Svenson's pinched line:

What - if anything - is the truth? Well, the 10/7 kopeck used stamp of which Dr Seichter has a photograph turned up in the Schmidt collection, signed by Dr Seichter. In addition a 15 kopeck imperforate used stamp was linked to it with a note from Seichter and his signature.

When Dr Seichter writes "so eingepäckt nicht möglich zu signieren" - so packed up like this not possible to sign - he means it literally: some of Schmidt's rare stamps were enclosed in tiny cellophane packets which were used before the days of Hawid mounts. They are very difficult to open - I use a scalpel to slit them and take out the stamps and I did this going through Schmidt's collection, keeping the little pieces of paper for future study. But of course Dr Seichter could not sign a stamp packed up in a cellophane bag! So he signed these little slips of paper instead with his official handstamp. 

The Trident on the 15 kopeck is unclear. But there is something important that these two stamps have in common and which would lead anyone to group them togethere: the cancellation is the same and it is in the same (and unusual) blue-green ink. And in the case of the 15 kopeck two letters are very clear and they read "...ASH..." just as we should expect if these stamps have anything to do with LubASHivka. 

In addition, both the trident overprints appear to be in the same ink and they both appear to be of the same dimensions (they are large tridents as Tridents go). 

Seichter does not list the Lubashivka Trident on a 15 kopeck imperforate. Neither does Bulat. They both list it on the 15 kopeck perforate. But Svenson lists it on the 15 kopeck imperforate and not on the 15 kopeck perforate.This is relevant to what follows.

Go to Bulat page 137 where he has the "Unknown" Trident illustrated last in the display above - and there he lists a 15 kopeck imperforate with violet overprint (Bulat Q4) and comments "The 15 kop has been found with a partial cancellation in green ink which has the same characteristic as the ink used in Lubashivka". Bulat probably got this information from Seichter or Schmidt and it may be that all that has happened over the years is that imperforate got switched to perforate at some point.

But there remains a genuine question: Are these two stamps with characteristic Lubashivka cancellations overprinted with the same Trident or not and, if so, which Trident among the ones I have illustrated?

This time YOU have to do the work. Just click on my image to enlarge it. Comments welcome.

:)

Postscript: The Forgeries are stamps I showed to Ron Zelonka and which he condemned. It may be helpful to see the two 10 / 7 kopeck stamps together:

Second Postscript 9 October 2012:

Tobias Huylmans using more advanced methods than I have available gets the Trident image below from the 10/7 kopeck Seichter signed stamp (the stamp on the left just above). It confirms the fan-like top to the spike but leaves some doubt about how the spike joins the base though it rules out the idea of the spike sides smoothly joining the base cap and leaving the middle space open.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Ukraine Local Trident Overprints

Like RSFSR Postmaster Provisional revaluation of 1920, locally produced Ukraine Trident overprints - which are also Postmaster Provisionals - are difficult to collect. But less difficult than is sometimes imagined.

First of all, think about the situation which generated legitimate local tridents. Official Trident overprints came into use late in August 1918. In September, the use of unoverprinted stamps was tolerated - and mixed frankings are quite common. Only from the beginning of October were unoverprinted stamps invalid.

So Postmasters had a problem only if they found themselves without (enough) Trident stamps at the beginning of October. They could put in requests for supplies and, eventually no doubt, they would get them.  Meanwhile, they might decide to improvise their own local Tridents.

In other words, there is no reason to expect to find a local Trident used before October 1918 and probably not much reason to expect to see them in use after say January 1919.

Producing the Tridents would have been extra work for a local post office, so it is likely that most local tridents were produced in small batches. When their use came to an end, it is unlikely that there were many mint remainders which could be called in by regional or central authorities. Of course, they could ask for a new batch to be produced ( for onward transmission to philatelic agencies) or they could ask for the handstamp and then produce their own Reprints. Likewise, if philatelists turned up quickly enough at some out-of-the-way post office they might be able to get a supply of mint stamps - this clearly happened in some cases.

Either way, when starting a collection of local Tridents it makes sense to avoid mint stamps since they will include Reprints, other philatelic productions and - of course - forgeries.

When Dr Seichter was working on Local Trident overprints he had four problems to deal with.  First, forgeries  produced by Captain Schramschenko (really Scamschenko) whose handstamps had not yet been discovered and prints taken from them published. Second, forgeries produced in the Soviet Union and authenticated with a large Soviet guarantee mark which Alexander Epstein has since shown to be a forgery. Dr Seichter seems not to have known this. Third, the lack of accurate drawings and illustrations of the Tridents. Fourth, the general lack of material.

The first two problems no longer exist. We can identify these forgeries quite easily. The third problem does remain. The catalogues in general use are not very helpful. We really need to see colour images with enlargements.

As for the fourth problem, the solution is to make a start with the commoner local Tridents. I exclude Chernihiv (Tchernigov) and Zhitomir since these were productions of regional post and telegraph administrations (as Alexander Epstein has shown).

Back in 1926, C Svenson in his Ukraina-Handbuch, II Teil  picked out the tridents of Ovruch and Sarny as both clearly legitimate and reasonably common issues (page 33). This remains true. Svenson even gives two prices for Ovruch 50 kopeck stamps: used (10 Marks) and used on complete postal Formular (15 Marks). Well, those Formulars are no longer that common in relation to the stamps but the stamps can be found. The illustration to this Blog shows my complete holding for Ovruch. The stamps are all Bulat 2465, catalogued at $55 used and unpriced for mint. Cancellations are dated October and November 1918. The Parcel Card fragment has the same style of punch hole as the complete Formular so probably was also sent to Kharkiv. A stamp has been harvested from the fragment to provide a copy of a used stamp - presumably an Ovruch Trident. This is characteristic of the way the Formulars were treated when first released in the 1920s and 1930s. All five loose stamps are signed (3 Dr Seichter, 2 UPV)

With Ovruch one is really only dealing with one stamp and one cancellation and nothing in the holding I am illustrating here is doubtful. In contrast, Sarny stamps were used at other offices and there are more values to collect. There are also mint Reprints and lots of forgeries, mint and used.

By the way, it is a good habit to try to find the cancellations used by local Trident post offices but on more common stamps, like General Issue (Shagiv) stamps. This is a good way of double checking authenticity.

The more difficult local trident issues are, of course, more difficult and I will write about this in my next Blog.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Katerynoslav Tridents: Work to Do?

Trident collectors will know that Katerynoslav Type I was (normally) applied in a horizontal handstamp holding five Tridents clichés, so that 20 impressions were required to overprint a sheet of 100 kopeck value stamps. But how many handstamps were there? And were they modified when a Trident fell out or deteriorated?

Bulat (page 46) illustrates just ONE handstamp of 5 but says that there were THREE different handstamps. Dr Seichter in a 1956 pamphlet says that "ungefähr 70 verschiedene Kombinationen" [about 70 different combinations] have been identified - not by him but (from the context) by C W Roberts. However, Seichter even in this specialised publication just about Katerynoslav illustrates just TWO variants: a "feiner Aufdruck" and a "grober Aufdruck" - a thin and a thick overprint, roughly as illustrated above from my holding of these Tridents.

Well, frankly, this is not impressive. These stamps are not rare even in multiples and it ought to be possible to produce a guide which gives us the same kind of information as we have for Kyiv II or Poltava I.

It may be that there were actually a small number of physically distinct handstamps but that individual clichés in the handstamp were frequently replaced due to them falling out or because of wear. In this way, THREE and SEVENTY might be brought closer together.

I am not going to do the work. If someone is interested, I have here an accumulation (ex Zelonka) of 22 complete sheets, representing 22 of the 26 values overprinted including the 35 kopeck perforated and imperforate. Some of the sheets are a bit toned. Anyway, the Bulat catalogue value is around $2870 for the basic stamps (no premium added for the multiples). I reckon 500 €uro a reasonable price for the Lot. And if a buyer succeeds in making progress on classifying the Handstamps, then he or she is invited to announce the results on this Blog to tell us how many Katerynoslav I handstamps there really are.... Get in touch if you are interested ( I may not reply before 112 September).

Ukraine Poltava Tridents: Bulat 971

If you are a Ukraine Trident collector, please ask yourself: What is a fair market price for this Block 4 used stamps, 1 rouble imperforate with Poltava Type I Trident in violet, not expertised but genuine and without punch-holes. Don't look at the answer just yet! When you start reading, remember to multiply by four to check whether you valued this block correctly!

MICHEL
Until recently, the Michel catalogue had a well-organised, compact Ukraine listing based on the work of Dr Seichter. Unfortunately, some Idiot decided to remove Seichter's work and replace it with a completely useless list. In the 2010/11 catalogue, the stamps above would count as # 39 valued "for the cheapest sort" at 0.20 €uro

YVERT et TELLIER
I only have an Yvert because someone gave it to me. I often think it is the world's worst catalogue. My Yvert 2003 lists this stamp, with Type I overprint, as 34g - which does not distinguish between black and violet overprints - and values it at 0.75 €uro

SCOTT
Runner up for the world's worst catalogue? I threw away the last one I had so I don't know what it says.

STANLEY GIBBONS
The 2008 Russia Specialised catalogue does distinguish between violet and black overprints, though not between Type I and Type II. The stamps above are listed as L341 at £33 [ about 40 €uro ] each. With Black overprint, the value is just £1

DR SEICHTER
In his 1966 Sonderkatalog, Dr Seichter lists this stamp (Type I with violet overprint) and values it at 80 Deutschmarks in used condition. In his Introduction to the 1998 American edition, Ingert Kuzych advises multiplying Seichter's DM figures by 0.33 to get a current US $ valuation, so about $26 for this stamp.

JOHN BULAT
This stamp is # 971 in Bulat's 2003 catalogue where it is valued at $5.00. This is, in fact, one of the numerous typographical errors in the book. Bulat generally divides Seichter's figures by about two to get his own valuations, but he sometimes adds a bit. Bulat had a special interest in Poltava tridents, and would more likely go up a bit on Seichter than go down. So I reckon the $5.00 is a misprint for $50.00. Bulat values the more common variety, with the Type I overprint in black, at $10 but here there is probably another misprint: Seichter values the black version at just 3 DM so even if Bulat went up we would be looking at $4 or $5.

RESULT?
This stamp with Black Type I overprint is common. I have handled lots and priced them at 1 to 5 €uros each depending on whether there is a legible date cancel or not and on whether there are punch holes (many, maybe most are punch-holed).
With violet overprint, this is a scarce stamp. Seichter rates it at 80 compared to his 3 for the black overpint. That's a big differential, reflecting the fact that in Poltava, Rouble value stamps normally have a Black Trident overprint just as kopeck values normally have a Violet one.

I think both Dr Seichter and Gibbons are in the right zone. Bulat 971 must be worth around 20 - 30 €uro each and so this block of 4 would be reasonably priced at 100 €uro to reflect its interest as a block 4 with complete cancellation (I think it's postally used - the back is a bit messy).

Am I right? What do other catalogues say?

For the moment, the real problem Trident collectors and dealers face is having to check Bulat against Dr Seichter to make sure they are not just dealing with a typographical error.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Don't Do It, Dr Seichter!

You wouldn't do it to the Mona Lisa, so don't do it to your postal history collection!

After showing you this Parcel Card, I will be trying to restore it to its original condition. There are three more stamps on the back bringing the franking up to 17 r 25 kopeck, which corresponds to the faded tally bottom left.

It is very interesting and probably excited Dr Seichter - he stuck on more labels than usual.

First, it shows use of Trident overprints at a very early date (ZINKOV POD 29 8 18). Second, the destination in Minsk Guberniya is unusual (it arrived there KHOLMETCH MINSK 7 9 18). Third, it shows mixed usage of overprinted and unoverprinted stamps (permitted at this date). Fourth, the 5r and 10r stamps with Podillia 10bb are rare (Bulat 1770 and 1771, $200 and $225).

One can also speculate: high value stamps were in short supply, especially perforated and these got used up first. You are more likely to see a 5r or 10 r perforated used in August-September 1918 than six months later.

And now the Mona Lisa after conservative restoration work:

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Odesa I Tridents: Seichter, Bulat, Zelonka

Everyone agrees that the common Odesa I trident overprints were produced by typography (Buchdruck) using a plate of 100. In his 1953 publication - the cover is shown above - Dr Seichter says (in effect) that there was a master horizontal cliché of 5 positions (a - b - c - d - e) which he illustrates (see also above). From this master, all the cliches were made and minor variations can be found giving rise to Plate varieties occurring only once in the sheet: John Bulat illustrates 5 notable varieties at page 79 of his Handbook though, of course, since this is a typographic overprint one should be able to plate all 100 positions as slightly different.

In his 1953 publication, Dr Seichter does not discuss Reprints but in his 1966 Sonderkatalog he lists "Neudrucke" sold by the "Sowjet-Agentur" and values them all at 40 DM each. He does not give any indication of how to tell Reprints apart from Originals and I don't think I have ever seen a Seichter "Neudruck" mark on the back of Odesa I stamps.

John Bulat lists Reprints on more values than Dr Seichter (Bulat 1079 - 1095), giving them a uniform mint price of $25 each which is much higher than for most of the Originals. He heads the list, "Overprinted in different variety of black ink" but does not say what the difference is.

Before his death, Dr Ron Zelonka helpfully expertised for me two copies of 20 kopeck perforated stamps with Odesa I overprints, identifying one as an Original (Bulat 1068, $75) and one as a Reprint (Bulat 1084 $25). See the illustrations above.

It seems that the Reprint is characterised by ink infill between the double outlines giving an overall blacker appearance - something you might expect from a re-used typographic plate with a build up of old ink. However, this alone is not the whole story. Ther are heavily inked Originals which look similar. And some cliché positions seem to fill with ink more than others. What is distinctive on the Reprint is the overall uniform darker impression.

What someone with a taste for research could do is this: assemble copies of a basic stamp for which there are no Reprints: for example, both Seichter and Bulat reckon that the very common 2 kopeck perforated is found only with Original overprints. Then assemble stamps which only exist with Reprint overprints: for example, the 1 kopeck perforated. (This will not be easy!) Then try to work out the distinguishing features. In some cases, it will also turn out that the shades of basic stamp used for the overprint also differs between Originals and Reprints. This is the case for the 4 kopeck perforated.

Postscript May 2012: A reader in the USA has kindly provided the illustration below showing Odesa I overprints which have been classified by Dr Seichter as Reprints (ND, Neudruck) - something I could not do. It can be seen that on all the stamps the overprints show what I called above an "overall darker impression". Thanks to this anonymous contribution, the reader is now in a much better position to set about classifying Odesa I overprints as Originals or Reprints according to the Bulat catalogue. It is just important to remember that in general Reprints are much scarcer and are unlikely to be found in small accumulations of Odesa I stamps.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Nightmare Tridents: Kyiv I Arnold and Svenson Types

The Arnold and Svenson sub-types of Kyiv I Tridents are rarely seen and hard to distinguish. Seichter lists Arnold Type, Type I a 1 (Svenson), Type I a 2 (Svenson) and Type Ib (Svenson). Bulat follows this at pages 12 - 14 of his Catalog.

Seichter has bad illustrations but describes Ib (Bulat's B1)as having a "langer Schwanz" (longer spike / longer prong). This is correct. Unfortunately, Bulat's illustrations for A2 and B1 are the WRONG WAY ROUND (transposed)which caused me real problems until I went back to Seichter.

Anyway, here's a quick Guide:

ARNOLD: normally in standard Kyiv I violet but in green on the 50 kopeck perforated and in both violet and black on the 1 rouble imperforate. Look for the MISSING BASE CAP. Row 1 on my Scan should make it clear. The pair of 1 rouble appears postally used at Zhitomir

SVENSON A1: always violet-black and in my experience ALWAYS placed at the top of the stamp. Found on values unlisted by Seichter or Bulat: see the 35 kop imperforate at the end of Row 2 (ex Zelonka)

SVENSON A2: always in black. Look for the spike ending more or less level with the top of the wings. See Row 3 of the scan.

SVENSON B1: normally in the same black, but look for the spike extending above the wings. Only one value is common to both A2 and B1, the 10 kopeck, and I have put the example I have in the wrong row. You should now be able to see why it should be in Row 4 not Row 3.

One value, the 5 kopeck imperforate, is found with B1 in violet-black and it is shown in Row 5 of my scan.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Kharkiv I Tridents: Dzenis Reprints and Originals

When Reprints are made from Handstamps, it is often difficult or impossible to tell Originals from Reprints unless the basic stamps used are different. This is true, for example, of CMT overprints from the Romanian Occupation of Pokutia. Sometimes, it may be possible if a large multiple is being looked at but impossible for single stamps.

Both Dr Seichter and John Bulat thought they could distinguish Original Kharkiv Trident overprints from 1919 Reprints made to order for the Riga stamp dealer, Dzenis. In some cases, the basic stamps used are different and then it ought to be easy. But when the same basic stamps are used, I am not convinced that it is always possible to distinguish the Reprints.

Bulat lists Kharkiv I on the 7 kopeck Imperial Arms stamps and prices Originals at $35 mint (Bulat 666). He prices Reprints at 50 cents each (Bulat 688) and he comments ""reprints were made with the same handstamps as the originals, however, the ink is different. It varies in quality and is found in shades of gray to gray-black" (page 40)

Now take a look at the stamps above. In the top two rows, copies signed Dr Seichter and (in one case - the last stamp) Bulat. In the bottom three rows, stamps signed Dr Seichter or UPV with the addition of a "ND" [Neudruck = Reprint] handstamp or manuscript note.

I have stared at these stamps for some time and I come to this conclusion: I cannot see ANY consistent differences between the two groups of stamps, when examined either from the front or from the back. The ink quality is similar and penetration of the ink seems to depend on how much the handstamp was inked.

Only the stamps in positions 18 and 21 have that crisp, light inking which I think of as an indicator that a stamp is a Reprint. But the majority of stamps have black, oily-ink overprints, sometimes smudged.

Can anyone show me that I have got this wrong? And how should I sell these stamps?

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Kyiv 1 Broken Tridents: a little theory

I have been looking at Kyiv I Broken Tridents from Lot 84 of the Zelonka sale (Bulat 62 - 108). These are not very interesting, since they are almost entirely philatelic productions. Most are cancelled to order at PROSKUROV in Podillia: see the strip of 5 above with cancellation dated 14 5 19.

(By the way, Bulat prices the 35 kopeck at $40 mint and $35 used [Bulat 76]. This is simply a misprint. The 35 kopeck seems to be one of the most common Broken Tridents and Dr Seichter gives it a value of 3 DM. In contrast, the 50 kopeck which Bulat prices at 20 cents, mint or used [Bulat 77] is an unpriced rarity in Dr Seichter. I don't have a copy but I have 20 copies of the 35 kopeck, so I am pretty convinced that the Bulat listing is wrong and Dr Seichter's right)

Anyway, in addition to the regular Broken Trident overprints in violet there are a few in red (a sort of pink - red). Bulat lists red overprints on the 10/7 kopeck, the 25 kopeck and the 50 kopeck imperforate (Bulat 71a, 75a, 90a). Dr Seichter also lists this overprint on the 7 kopeck, which I have - see the three stamps illustrated above. Both catalogs agree that these red overprints are rare, with Bulat using a price range of $75 - $150.

I now have a total of 9 copies of these stamps (but I don't have a copy of the 50 kopeck imperforate)and all are cancelled KIEV and none are cancelled Proskurov. And the date is later and where readable in 2 7 19.

So my little theory is this: though most of the Broken Trident overprints were exported to Podillia in mint conditon and cancelled to order there (in an area under UNR control), the handstamp remained in Kyiv. To mark the Bolshevik (Red) take-over of Kyiv, someone had the idea of making Broken Trident overprints in red. They clearly did not make very many. Dr Seichter listed and signed these overprints, though sometimes he marks them as "Neudruck" which of course they are in relation to the original printings both of Kyiv I and the Broken Trident variant. My suggestion is that they should be thought of as Bolshevik - flavoured Tridents.

Postscript 15 July 2012:

Here is a cover from a recent auction. Dated even later (29 1 20)and addressed to Moscow (though I do not think it travelled), it has two red Broken tridents in the middle flanked by Kyiv IIgg in red on two other stamps, all clearly from the same ink pad. When I looked inside the envelope, I found Dr Seichter's signatures combined with his Opinions: the Kyiv I Broken Tridents he treats as Reprints (Neudruck) and the Kyiv IIgg overprints as philatelic productions (Philatelisten Druck). Interestingly, the KIEV canceller appears to be the same as the one used on my loose stamps.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Lost in Translation: Seichter and Bulat again

I found the two stamps above in Lot 84 of the Zelonka sale and went to Bulat to see if he listed this combination of Kyiv I and Kyiv II ( it looks like IIg to me). He doesn't.

So I went to Dr Seichter's 1966 Sonder - Katalog. He does list this variety under Kyiv I as "Kiew I + II zusammen" and gives it a - - price.

One of these stamps is signed UPV and the other is unsigned; both probably came from Dr Seichter's holdings incorporated into Ron Zelonka's collection.

They are almost certainly philatelic rather than a genuine use of one handstamp to correct a weak impression of another [more on these in future posts], but Bulat lists many stamps and varieties which are philatelic. So it seems likely that he just skipped past this one in Dr Seichter's listing.

It provides another example of why serious collectors really need to use the Bulat catalog and Dr Seichter's Katalog side-by-side.

It's a pity the cancellations aren't legible. Both stamps are without gum and from the positioning of the cancels, it looks as if they were originally on paper with the cancellation tying them to the paper, rather than struck centrally as it would be if they were just cancelled to order off paper.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

Kharkiv Tridents and Dzenis Reprints

Click on Images to enlarge

Most Trident collectors have heard of "Dzenis" Reprints and they are separately listed in Bulat's catalog. Dzenis was a Riga stamp dealer who, I guess, was able to travel to Bolshevik Kharkiv during the Bolshevik occupation of Riga in 1919. The reprints made for him had postal validity.

Sometimes Dzenis reprints are on different basic stamps from original Trident overprints and so are easily distinguished. But when they are on the same basic stamps, they are not always easy to distinguish - but Bulat catalog values are often very different.

In Dr Seichter's 1960 pamphlet "Bezirk Charkiw" he discusses how to distinguish originals and reprints.

He also illustrates [ Tafel VII, #16] the irregular block illustrated above. It is believed that this Kharkiv III overprint made from a single handstamp was applied to 2 kopeck imperforate stamps intended to uprate 3 kopeck postal stationery cards. The ink on this block is very black, uneven, and oily: it penetrates to the back of the stamps. This is typical of Original printings. This stamp is Bulat 753, catalogued at $100 each

Also in Dr Seichter's collection was the quarter sheet with a typed note attached. Unfortunately, we do not know to what "gleicher Art" refers but I guess it means "Reprint" - and on the back of this block, Ron Zelonka has pencilled "ND" [Neudruck = Reprint]. So this is Bulat 769 catalogued at $10. The ink is matt, greyish and does not penetrate to the back of the stamps. This is typical of most Reprints but not all. As important in this case, the Handstamp used is not the same as the IIIg used on the originals. And the shade of the basic stamp is different.

Using the Seichter and Bulat Ukraine catalogs together

John Bulat's Ukraine catalaog, published by the UPNS in the USA, is the catalog of choice for all Ukraine collectors.
Rightly so. But back in May I blogged about some of its faults and, using it again today, I noticed more.
For example, some listings in Bulat are based on Dr Seichter's catalog but appear to mix up his mint and used columns and other descriptions. I discovered this while working through Lot 84 from the Zelonka sale, which includes Seichter material.

Specifically:

Bulat 23b is a variety (shifted center) on the basic stamp. Bulat prices this for mint but not for used. Seichter prices it for used but not for mint. Since I have a used pair but no mint copies out of Lot 84, my guess is that the Seichter listing is correct: this is a variety you may encounter used [ though I have never seen it before today] but are unlikely to see mint.

Bulat 30a is again a listing of a variety of the basic stamp. Bulat lists a 3 rouble 50 kopeck in "maroon and dark green". Seichter lists a "dunkler braun und giftgrun". Again, it is Seichter who is correct since it is the brown/maroon colour which is darker on this stamp than on the normal variety.

I conclude that when doing serious work, it is necessary to have both catalogs on the table. Fortunately, UPNS has also published an edition of Dr Seichter's work

Katerynoslav Trident Type II - Haddendorf type

Click on image and use your Magnifier to enlarge



The framed Katerynoslav type II Trident is attractive, not common, and much forged. The most well-known (and collectible) forgeries are the quite good ones distributed by the Constantinople dealer Samuel Guéron. These are often found with fake KHARKIV postmarks. In the early 1990s, I walked into a stamp shop in Tunbridge Wells in England and asked for any Russian or Ukrainian material. Much to my surprise, the dealer produced a very, very old stockbook stuffed with Katerynoslav Type II tridents, many on kopeck values and many on unaddressed philatelic covers. At £25 I thought I had made my fortune - but the whole lot were Guéron forgeries. I remember sending photocopies of the untouched stockbook to John Bulat before I broke it up.

There is a variant of the Type II which is not well known, the so-called Haddendorf type. In his Ukraine Jekaterinoslaw Bildanhang (1956), Dr Seichter illustrates two examples (illustrations 37 and 39 - see the picture above) and labels them "Haddendorf-Type (Neudruck)= abgenutzte Type II mit fast fehlendem Rahmen". In other words, it is a Reprint with the frame lines almost missing.

I have only ever seen a very few examples and at the present time I have just one in my stockbook, on a 25 kopeck stamp illustrated above.

Added February 2020: Most of my Ukraine-related Blog posts are now available in full colour book form. To find out more follow the link:

http://www.armeniazemstvo.com/2020/02/just-published-trevor-pateman.html

John Bulat does not mention this Reprint in his Catalog and neither does Dr Seichter in his Sonderkatalog. More puzzling, in his booklet Was wir über Jekaterinoslaw wissen (1956), published in the same year as the Bildanhang, he makes no mention of the Haddendorf type.

So all we have is a name and a few examples. Information please!
_________________________

PS. The 25 kopeck example illustrated above has now been sold