Detailed look at my German Inflation era Postage Stamps

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 04 Nov 2018 20:43

1923 Figure 17. Mi.333 AP showing substantial OP shift. (Stamp 5 from group).

1923 Figure 18. Mi.333 AP with slight OP shift, heavy OP and irregular, damaged bars below. (Stamp 6 from group).

Large 5.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 04 Nov 2018 21:00

1923 Figure 19. Michel table for Mi.334 Ap and BP.

Just to clarify the perforations here

1923 Figure 20. Perforation characteristics for A and B in basket inflation stamps.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 04 Nov 2018 22:24

1923 Figure 21. Mi. 334 examples.

An interesting lot with 4 distinctive OPD printings and A and B perforations.

Stamps
1. Margin OP i (large antique numbering). B roulette perfs. Stettin. TYPE B.
2. Margin OP i (large antique numbering) A perfs. Stettin. TYPE A.
3. Margin OPD c, A 4.5mm bar and A perfs. Erfurt. TYPE A.
4. Margin OPD c, A 4.5mm bar and B perfs. Erfurt (Stamp 4 has ERFURT on top). TYPE B.
5. Margin OP g. Two line bars, perfs B, Munich. TYPE B.
6. Margin OP g. Two line bars, perfs A, Munich. TYPE A.
7. Margin OP g. Two line bars, perfs B, Munich. TYPE B.
8. Margin OP b. Three line bars, perfs A.Breslau or Munich. TYPE A.

So identifying these from table.

1. Margin OP i (large antique numbering). B roulette perfs. Stettin.

Mi.334 B P OPD K i OR B (St. i). CV €24.

2. Margin OP i (large antique numbering) A perfs. Stettin.

Mi.334 A P OPD K i OR A (St. i). CV €14

3. Margin OPD c, A 4.5mm bar and A perfs. Erfurt.

Mi.334 A P OPD B c OR A (Ef.c). CV €12.

4. Margin OPD c, A 4.5mm bar and B perfs. Erfurt (Stamp 4 has ERFURT on top).

Mi.334 B P OPD B c OR B (Ef.c). CV €22.

5. Margin OP g. Two line bars, perfs B, Munich.

Mi.334 B P OPD H g OR B (Mc. g). CV €22.

6. Margin OP g. Two line bars, perfs A, Munich.

Mi.334 A P OPD H g OR A (Mc. g). CV €5.

7. Margin OP g. Two line bars, perfs B, Munich.

Mi.334 B P OPD H g OR B (Mc. g). CV €22.

8. Margin OP b. Three line bars, perfs A. Breslau.

Mi.334 A P OPD A b OR A (Bl.b). CV €5.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 05 Nov 2018 03:13

Now for the Mi. 335.

Thus is a more complex issue in that we have 335 APa, 335 AWa, AWb and 333 BP.

1923 Figure 22. Michel tables for Mi.335 OPD.

Note rarity of Mi.335 A W b shades (the blackish blue with blackish grey ultramarine) reflected in very high CVs.

Also note the BP OPD CVs.

Common then are the OPDs for A P a.

1923 Figure 23. Examples of Mi.335 OPD.

Stamp 4 is an A W NOT an A P.

Most are not surprisingly AP a.

Note on distinguishing Flat plate and rotary printings.

1923 Figure 24. Length comparisons for Flat Plate and Rotary plate printing.

Easiest way in assessing P and W for single stamp is to use a good 313A (all flat plate) for comparisons.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 05 Nov 2018 03:52

I am only going to deal with top four OPDs.

1923 Figure 25. Stamps 1 to 4 in 1923 Figure 23, with extra information.

Conclusions.

Stamp 1.

Mi. 335 A P a OPD C c OR C (Ff, c) C Frankfurt. (€17).

Stamp 2.

Mi. 335 A P a OPD B c OR A (Ef, c) A Erfurt (€18).

Stamp 3.

Mi. 335 A P a OPD H g OR C (Mc, g) C Munich (€8).

Stamp 4.

Mi. 335 W a OPD H g OR C O.6.0/ O.7.0 (Mc, g) A Munich (€12).

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 05 Nov 2018 07:51

1923 Figure 26. Michel Tables for OPD Mi.336.

1923 Figure 27. Examination of OPD Mi.336.

1923 Figure 28a. Examination of OPD Mi.336. Stamp 1 in Figure 27.

1923 Figure 28b. Examination of OPD Mi.336. Stamp 2 in Figure 27.

1923 Figure 28b. Examination of OPD Mi.336. Stamp 3 in Figure 27.

Stamps 4 and 5 as for 1 and 2.

1923 Figure 28c. Examination of OPD Mi.336. Stamp 6 in Figure 27.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 05 Nov 2018 08:20

1923 Figure 29. Michel table for OPD Mi.337 A P.

A little easier than the 356!

All AP.

1923 Figure 30. Examination of selected OPD Mi.337 A P.

Top row left to right.

1. Mi.357 A P OPD Ki OR C (St,i). Stettin €20.

2. Mi.357 A P OPD Ki OR B (St,i). Stettin €15.

3. Mi.357 A P OPD Bd OR B (Ef,d). Stettin €70.

Bottom row left to right.

4. Mi.357 A P OPD Hg OR B (Mc,g). Munich €15.

5. Mi.357 A P OPD Hg OR A (Mc,g). Munich €450?

Best until last?

maptrekker · Post by **maptrekker** » 07 Nov 2018 07:53

The Mi 332 A W in Figure 10c is definitely a 1'4'1/1'5'1. 0'6'0/1'5'1 would not give you the two long bars on each side.

Figure 23-8 is an "AP" in that advertising only appeared in the right margins of flat plate printings.

Figure 23-9 likewise is an "AP' in that "sum of row numbers" (Summierungzahlen) only appear in the left margins of flat plate printings. Rotary press printings had "group pair numbers" (Gruppenpaarnummern).

Have you examined the underlying stamps for the primary and secondary "basket weave" plate flaws?

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 07 Nov 2018 09:35

Thanks for information maptrekker.

I looked for the HT of course and no joy.

I can look a little more for the other numerous PEs etc.

I do have singles showing some primary and secondaries.

I will select some for show if anyone is interested.

John

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 07 Nov 2018 21:31

Here is a 335 BP with HT

I doubt cancel is genuine. Stamp looks far too sweet to be used! Also what a too perfect strike.

CV for used B P HT is €300!

Scan of 335BP with HT flaw.

edguetzow · Post by **edguetzow** » 10 Mar 2019 05:32

Great series as always!

I have run across this copy of Mi 275a with what appears to be a plate flaw.
Do you have any information that could confirm this for me?

]

Thank you!

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 10 Mar 2019 07:58

Thanks for post.

This looks to me like a scuff mark on stamp.

In other words damage to surface of stamp.

The damage even scrapes over the cancel, so was made after stamp was sent probably after being handled etc.

Other stain/ damage shown on full stamp running through /over T of cancel.

I have no advanced information on flaws on these particular stamps except for blanked off top left corner and a dot above D!

Colour is not orange on my monitor, is the stamp you have a dull light brown or is this due to photograph ?

The irregular top noted.

john

edguetzow · Post by **edguetzow** » 10 Mar 2019 08:42

Yes, I was referring to that irregular top edge as the main point of interest.

The colors listed for the stamp are either a dark ochre or a brown ochre. This seems to be the former (275a). I only found references to the 2 types of plate flaw that you mention.

Could the irregular top edge be caused by something other than a potential plate flaw?
Thank you!

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 10 Mar 2019 09:43

Ah. Top of stamp.

OK. A variation in printing process only I think.

Flawed top, but not a plate flaw with any constancy.

Not untypical of these.

I will dig out some and post them tomorrow to see what tops I have to offer.

John

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 31 Mar 2019 03:37

Michel 297 to Michel 300.

Attempting to resurrect thread a little.

Sorting my inflation stamps.

Nice to find things that were overlooked.

Here is a reminder of the set.

Scan of Mi.297 to Mi.300 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps.

We have two areas to look at , the stamp image itself and the overprint.

Variants occur on both.

The main varieties listed involve

-the ribbons at the base of stamps,

-the border at the bottom,

-double overprints.

Here are some ´findings` for my stamps-

a. Scan of Mi.299 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing dented bottom border.

b. Scan of Mi.299 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing large breaks to right border.

c. Scan of Mi.299 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing bulge lower right border.

d. Scan of Mi.300 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing bulge centre of lower border.

This given as field 43 (300 f43) in handbook cited many times above.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 31 Mar 2019 03:49

e. Scan of Mi.300 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing 2 breaks in lower border (one highlighted centrally 6 one right hand corner).

f. Scan of Mi.300 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing white flecks over ´Reich`.

This is 300 f4 in handbook.

g. Scan of Mi.298 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing overprint of second ´0`in ´400`flattened on left and spotty.

h. Scan of Mi.297 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing overprint of second ´0`in ´400` cut at top.

i. Scan of Mi.297 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing break in ´e`of ´TAUSEND`.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 31 Mar 2019 04:57

J. Scan of Mi.299 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing left sides of the `0`s in ´400`thinned.

k. Scan of Mi.300 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing damage to the `0`s in ´400`.

l. Scan of Mi.300 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps mis shaped ´s` in `Tausend`.

j. Scan of Mi.300 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing split of ´e`and ´n`in ´Tausend`-

k. Scan of Mi.300 1923 Deutsches Reich postage stamps showing large problem of mis-perforation.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 31 Mar 2019 04:58

I am searching for examples of ribbon problems.

I am sure i have some, somewhere!

John

rao1976 · Post by **rao1976** » 20 May 2019 16:34

can anybody help me with this stamp value i just found this in my collection

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 26 May 2019 07:28

Concerning found German stamp rao1976.

High inflation period 1923

Michel 308A.

800 thousand on 1000M.

There are 2 shades a, and b.

a. bright to black´ish yellow green CV used €2

b. bright green (shades). CV used €65

Many cancels were forged in the period.

Mint stamps have low CVs.

John

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 31 Aug 2019 21:41

Time for a bump-

In a final sorting (is there such a thing?) of inflation stamps, I was intrigued by this Mi. 281 experience.

The stamp is 1923 issue of the 20 thousand on 25 ochre.

Michel and the Handbuch of flaws give the following as 281 I.

Scan showing Handbuch of Flaw Mi.281 I, distance between bar and denomination difference.

Note that the red line clearly shows distance to be measured as bottom of bar to top of the ´0`!

Am I going mad but the distances quoted are not possible?

The 12mm would give a distance more like the bottom of bar to the top of the ´e` in Tausend.

The stamp is only just over 2 cm long!

Here is a scan of a few Mi.281 and distance between bar and denomination measured (computer enlargement and using Mac Inkscape software).

The distances measured for Michel and Handbuch between bar and top of ´0` in `20`.

The average distance then is around 3.3 mm +/- .

Scan of enlargements of a few Mi.281 outliers in measured distance between bar and top of 0.

a. Distance for one Mi.281 measured at 3.18 mm.

b. Distance for one Mi.281 measured at 3.45 mm.

This stamp shows a problem wth the ´0`in 20, as well as having a ´y`mark to left of ´d´in ´Tausend`!

I am also intrigued as to exactly where one measures from the bar as this rarely shows a discrete border and the ´0`that also is mostly blurred.

Past measurements presumably didn't use computers.

I may be totally wrong in this so help please, either I am mad or Michel and Handbuch (quoting the same criteria) are mistaken.

What distance then should be measured?

It is worth pointing out the a used, lesser distanced Mi.281, has a Michel CV of €500 and Handbuch CV of €360, so is scarce.

Maybe my 3.18 mm is a shortfall?

John

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 01 Sep 2019 00:17

Two more discoveries while resorting stock.

Missed first time round.

Michel 312 ab f div, flat topped ´2`in overprint.

Scan of Handbuch flaw Michel 312 ab f div description.

Scan of two Mi.318 found with Michel 312 ab f div, flat topped 2 in overprint.

Scan of enlarged ´2`from two Mi.318 found with Michel 312 ab f div, flat topped 2 in overprint.

There seems to be quite a share cut off at the top to the 2´s. This is unlike the rest of the 2 outlines.

Looking at increased magnification it does not appear that the top was tampered with!

The stamp on right has very similar characteristics to diagram from handbuch. The left stamp top is shorter.

Interesting CV of €250 used.

Note the mints are much lower.

Always doubt high inflation cancels though, many were forged, as said previously.

Cancels on my examples are just messy enough to be genuine.

John

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 02 Sep 2019 06:19

The Mi.312 issues are a great source of all sorts of errors.

I am sorting so here are a few to begin with.

As my examples are scattered in several albums, I have taken photographs, so first efforts are testing whether this is useful.

I am also waiting for the Handbuch-Schantl Plattenfehlerkatalog BRD /Berlin DDR /Deutsches Reich, that contains more information on flaws for the inflation era.

So I will await the arrival and then see if I can illuminate flaws better with my examples.

For now, a few test attempts from photographs.

Picture of Mi.318 with large white flaw over ´D`in ´Deutsches`.

[bE]nlargement of flaw on ´D`in ´Deutsches`.[/b]

Here is a less common and very convincing flaw.

Photograph of Mi.312 f76, missing ´t`in Deutsches`.

NHM €100, HM €40 Used €375.

Here is another example of a used flat topped ´2`

Photograph of Mi.312Ab f div. with flat topped 2.

Note CV is €250.

I think the photographs are not too bad to illustrate flaws.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 25 Oct 2019 07:50

A normal Michel 278 is shown below.

Scan of Michel 278 postage stamp.

The flaw 278 IV is a green wedge at the base of the´0` of ´30`.

The flaw is described for positions 10, 15, 60 and 65.

I show below stamps where there are wedges on consecutive stamps.

Scan A. Mi.278 pair showing wedges in ´0` of ´30`.

Scan B. Mi.278 block of four showing wedges in ´0` of ´30` of two of the stamps.

Scan C. Mi.278 Vertical pair of stamps showing wedge in ´0` of ´30` on lower stamp.

Interest.

1. Since positions have been determined as 10, 15, 60 and 65 then consecutive stamps cannot have the flaw.

2. I see variation on the flaw from a triangular shape as in Scan B a dot (left stamp) to an elongated triangle (right stamp).

Scan A shows distinct triangular shapes but the right hand stamp is slightly less defined.
The shapes on Scan A differ from those Scan B.

Scan C shows a smaller dot of green on lower stamp, as for the left hand stamp in Scan B.

Interesting.

I have seen similar variations in shape for the ´flaw`on the non overprinted Mi.162.

The CVs for never hinged Mint are €110, hinged mint €40 and used €450!

John

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 25 Oct 2019 08:24

Here is one more Mi.278 and some variants of the Mi.IV flaw on Mi. 162.

Scan of used Mi.278 IV.

Scans of Mi.162 IV.

a. Triangular flaw.

b. Confused fragmented flaw? Could be position 60 (edge stamp).

c. Narrow triangular flaw with line at base.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 30 Jan 2020 04:16

Sought out a few proofed stamps whilst browsing a stock book (as you do).

Thought it might be useful to show various INFLA Berlin proofings and maybe lead to some discussion.

Circular proofs show cancels as genuine (ECHT) with enough information to decide from cancel alone.

Squared proofings indicate that cancel was not only criterion and that it was not of sufficient completeness alone to proof and other information was used.

Circular proofings with added INFLA Berlin show stamp to be genuine with high certainty.

Initials in centre of proof marks indicate the proofer identity.

View of stamps examined looking at proof markings.

Enlargements of stamps and proofings. Stamp 1. 1923, Mi.293. 250 Thousand on 200 Mark. Used CV around €22

Enlargements of stamps and proofings. Stamp 2. Rotary press 2 million Mark, Mi.315A W a (CV €26, Mi. 315AW b CV €10,000!

]Enlargements of stamps and proofings. Stamp 3. Michel 309AP b. CV around €56

Note Im Block in proof mark indicating stop was from a block?

Enlargements of stamps and proofings. Stamp 4. Michel 309AW a. CV around €2.

Enlargements of stamps and proofings. Stamp 5. Michel 309AW b. CV around €14.

Enlargements of stamps and proofings. Stamp 6. Michel 309AW b. CV around €14.

Note has INFLA Berlin added.

I am assuming that W8 and P8 should be interpreted as WB (Wb) and PB (Pb) but I m not sure (as in stamps 2 (P8) and 5 (W8).

I also note that the proofings vary in direction .

I am stimulated to look at my inflation issues to see other variations e.g for rouletted stamps, in terms of positioning of proof markings.

Please show yours for the era. Also feel free to correct me or dd information. I am here to learn.

John

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:14

Having built up a large pile of inflation era stamps, one can look carefully at aberrations in printing.

For overprinted stamps we have the underlying stamp itself with possible flaws; the overprint numerals and bars subject to printing errors including mis perforations and various degrees misalignment of overprints (shift).

Here are the raw pages of what I have gleaned so far. I follow these with enlargements of most of the stamps.

Some of the errors are catalogued but most not indicating mere printing errors and not consistent flaws.

: Page1

: Page 2

: Page 3

: Page 4

: Page5

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:18

: page 6

Pages 6 to 10

: Page 7

: Page 8

: Page 9

: Page 10

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:24

Pages 11-14

: Page 11

: Page 12

: Page 13

: Page 14

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:33

Stamps from Page 1.

: Michel 286b (1)

: Michel 286b (2)

: Michel 286b (3)

: Michel 286b (4)

: Michel 286b (5)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:39

: Michel 289b. (6)

: Michel 289b (7)

: Michel 289b (8)

: Michel 289b (9)

: Michel 289b. Flaw from field 94 289 f94 Plattenfehler Katalog. (10)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:42

: Michel 289b (11)

: Michel 289b (12)

: Michel 289b (13)

: Michel 289b (14)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:49

Stamps from page 2.

: Michel 289b Page 2 (1)

: Michel 289b Page 2 (2)

: Michel 289b Page 2 (3) Recognised flaw 289bf7B

: Michel 289b Page 2 (4)

: Michel 289b Page 2 (5)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:52

: Michel 289b Page 2 (6)

: Michel 289b Page 2 (7)

: Michel 289b Page 2 (8)

: Michel 289b Page 2 (9)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 07:59

Stamps from page 3.

: Page 3 (1) Michel 292

: Page 3 (2) Michel 296

: Page 3 (3) Michel 296. Recognised flaw 296f32

: Page 3 (4) Michel 292

: Page 3 (5) Michel 292

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:02

: Michel 293 Page 3 (6)

: Michel 293 Page 3 (7)

: Michel 293 Page 3 (8)

: Michel 293 Page 3 (9)

: Michel 293 Page 3 (10)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:04

: Michel 296 Page 3 (11)

: Michel 296 Page 3 (12)

: Michel 296 Page 3 (13)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:12

Stamps from page 4. Showing more stamps per scan....

: Page 4 (1) Michel 292

: Page 4 (2) Michel 293 Stamp on right with recognised flaw 293 f58

: Page 4 (3) Michel 293

: Page 4 (4) Michel 296

: Page 4 (5) Recognised flaw 303 f71

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:17

Stamps from page 5.

: Page 5 (1) Michel 303 with recognised flaws. 303 f29 and 305 f5

: Page 5 (2) Michel 305 right hand stamp with flaw 305 f81

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:23

Stamps from page 6.

: Page 6 (1) Michel 303

: Page 6 (2) Michel 303

: Page 6 (3) Michel 303

: Page 6 (4) Michel 305

: Page 6 (5) Michel 305 (note caption wrong in scan). Flaw 305 f95

: Page 6 (6) Michel 305

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:30

Stamps from page 7.

: Page 7 (1) Michel 310 Left stamp 310 f40 flaw, next stamp 310 f60 recognised flaws, Various pieces missing from the ´2`.

: Page 7 (2) Michel 293 block of 6.

: Page 7 (3)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:34

Stamps from page 8. Various problems with Michel 290.

: Michel 290 Page 8 (1)

: Michel 290 Page 8 (2)

: Michel 290 Page 8 (3)

: Michel 290 Page 8 (4)

: Michel 290 Page 8 (5)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:44

Stamps from page 9.

: Page 9 (1) Michel 291 (left and middle) errors on host stamp, Michel 295 flaw on host stamps.

: Page 9 (2) Michel 309 (c for e), Michel 312 flaws on host stamps.

: Page 9 (3) Michel 304

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:46

Stamps from page 10.

: Page 10 (1)

: Page 10 (2)

: Page 10 (3)

: Page 10 (4)

: Page 10 (5)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:48

Stamp from page 11.

: page 11 (1) Michel 296

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:50

Stamps from page 12.

: Page 12 (1)

: Page 12 (2)

: Page 12 (3)

: Page 12 (4)

: Page 12 (5)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:52

Stamps from page 13.

: Page 13 (1)

: Page 13 (2)

: Page 13 (3)

: Page 13 (4)

: Page 13 (5)

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 08:54

Stamps from page 14.

: Page 14 (1) recognised flaws Michel 312Ab f div.

: Page 14 (2) with a Michel 312 f49 recognised flaw.

: Page 14 (3 )mis perforated stamps

: Page 14 (4) 22 bar lines (not 21).

: Page 14 (5) 22 bar lines (not 21).

: Page 14 (6) Michel 303 f 27 recognised flaw first three bars affected.

johnrcrow · Post by **johnrcrow** » 13 Jul 2020 09:03

Phew.

Food for thought at least. I will dig out more I am sure.

Not everyone´s cup of tea I suppose but generally interesting to see what happens with the difficulties of printing.

Feel free to comment.....

John

maptrekker · Post by **maptrekker** » 13 Jul 2020 12:57

Amazing pages and amazing patience.

I can see wear and tear explaining the pieces missing from the bars - especially at both ends of the obliteration.

But the sloping bars on page 10 is really food for thought.