1859 & 1864. Coat of Arms. Ein Halber Schilling
Genuine vs. Forgeries
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
8 lines in upper scroll above ‘H’ and ‘G’ in HAMBURG
2
Three vertical lines to the left of ‘H’ and right of ‘G’ in HAMBURG
3
Vertical line of shading to the left of ‘P’
4
‘h’, ‘l’ and ‘b’ has a long top-stroke
5
8 lines in bottom scroll below ‘P’
6
‘a’ has a tail that is nearly half as tall as the letter itself
7
Footstrokes of ‘H’ slightly separated, typically showing a dot between them.
8
Left side of ‘T’ is detached
9
‘AM’ in HAMBURG is not joined
10
Left footstroke is separated from the column of ‘M’
11
Lower scroll does not touch the inner frame
12
The cross on the dome does not touch the scroll and is open to the top-left
13
Two small dots after ‘G’, either one or both of which may be missing.
14
The stem does not touch the scroll
15
Dot is separated from both line and trident
16
Top stroke of the first ‘l’ in schilling is often broken
17
Faint indication of a vertical line of shading to the right of ‘E’
Genuine – 1859. Imperforate. Michel #1
The forgeries lack one or more of the characteristics described above
Beware of trimmed perforated stamps. To be on the safe side, make sure the margins are adequate (min. 21,5 mm x 25,5 mm)
Genuine – 1864. Perforated. Michel #10
Same characteristics as imperforate
Fournier forgery
Fournier forgery
Forgery
Forgery
Forgery
Forgery
Forgery
Forgery
Forgery
The Philatelic Foundation Certificate #181421
Genuine essay
ex. Maurice Burrus
Discuss
on Facebook
Discuss
on Google+
Contact
Stampforgeries.com