... Serbian Forgeries ...
1904
100 years anniversary of the Kara-George dynasty
- Now including Fournier forgeries -
(courtesy of B. Claghorn's Fournier Album)
Fast jump selection:
In his 1914 price-list of philatelic forgeries ("Facsimiles of Obsolete Postage Stamps"
[2]) Fournier offered the complete 5 values of this set for 0.50 French Francs. The set was
listed under his "1st Choice" selection, facsimiles of the highest degree of workmanship,
printed in single copies.
Mi #76
Forgery Type II
|
Genuine
|
Billig's Grosses Handbuch der Falschungen lists two different forgeries of this
issue [1]. One is a Fournier forgery, while the other is simply characterised as
"Forgery Type II", and I have no further information about the origins of this forgery.
Thanks to Bill Claghorn I can now show samples of both types!
Both the original stamps and the two forgery types are line perforated 11 1/2 so this is
not a reliable characteristic to use. Some of the colour differences you see here might be
due to the scanning processes, but Fournier has obviously not been able to replicate the
correct green colour of the stamps, resulting in a rather dull green with shades of yellow.
The Type II forgeries are much closer to the green tone of the genuine issues. The main
DESIGN characteristics of this issue are described below:
- There is little difference in the top text between genuine issues and Type II
forgeries. It is easier to see the difference in the text for the Fournier forgeries,
especially the shape of the Cyrillic letter "P". Note, however, the missing foot
of the Cyrillic "f" on the Type II forgery.
|
Genuine
|
|
Fournier
forgery
|
|
|
Forgery Type II
|
|
Furthermore:
- The smaller writing inside the center field (the names "Kara-George" and "Petar I")
is almost illegible on the Type II forgeries, but much better performed
on the Fournier issues.
- The coloured triangle in the right ornament is very asymmetric on the Type II
forgeries, and the ends of the vertical bars are blunt. On the Fournier
forgeries, the lower corner of the triangle touches the ornament below
- The "drop" or petal hanging from the vertical ornaments is mostly connected on
genuine stamps, but separate ovals on the forgeries. This is the case for both
forgeries.
- The tiny appendix inside the left ornament is almost non-existent on the
Type II forgeries, but slightly better on the Fournier issues.
- Note also the different shapes of the numbers "1804", especially the head
and foot of the "1".
- Shading between figures and ornaments is rather weak on Fournier's forgeries,
but almost completely coloured on the Type II forgeries. The genuine issues have
fairly distinct shading all over the design.
|
Genuine
|
Fournier forgery
|
Forgery Type II
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Genuine
|
|
Fournier
forgery
|
|
|
Forgery Type II
|
|
Mi #77
Forgery Type II
|
Genuine
|
Also for this issue both the original stamps and the two forgery types are line
perforated 11 1/2. Both forgers seem to have had some problems imitating the correct
red colour on this issue, so the forgeries have a distinct paler tone and uneven
colour application compared to the original issue. The printing also seems to be
slightly more blurred that on the green 5 Para above. The main design characteristics
of these issues are mostly the same as above:
- Little difference in the top text between genuine issues and Type II forgeries.
This particular difference is more important for the Fournier forgeries, especially the
shape of the cyrillic letter "P".
|
Genuine
|
|
Fournier
forgery
|
|
|
Forgery Type II
|
 |
- The star above the portraits is heavily deformed on the Type II forgeries.
- The coloured triangle in the right ornament is very asymmetric on the Type II
forgeries, and the ends of the vertical bars are blunt. On the Fournier
forgeries, the lower corner of the triangle touches the ornament below.
- The "drop" or petal hanging from the vertical ornaments is well shaped and partly
connected on genuine stamps, but separate ovals on the forgeries. This is the case
for both forgeries.
- The tiny appendix inside the left ornament is almost non-existent on the
Type II forgeries, but slightly better on the Fournier issues.
- Note also the different shapes of the numbers "1804".
- The shading between figures and ornaments is almost completely coloured on the
Type II forgeries, less coloured on the Fournier issues. The shading is rather coloured
also on the genuine stamps, but the lines are much more even and distinct.
|
Genuine
|
Fournier forgery
|
Forgery Type II
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Genuine
|
|
Fournier
forgery
|
|
|
Forgery Type II
|
|
Mi #78
Forgery Type II
|
Genuine
|
Again, both the original stamps and the two forgery
types are line perforated 11 1/2. For this issue the forgers seem to have had even
bigger problems imitating the correct violet colour, ending up with a very pale
Fournier forgery and a distinct brownish tone on the Type II forgery. The print
also seems to be rather blurred with very uneven colour application along edges
and lines. The main design characteristics of this issue are mostly the same as above:
- Little difference in the top text between genuine issues and Type II
forgeries. This particular difference is more important for the Fournier
forgeries, especially the shape of the cyrillic letter "P".
|
Genuine
|
|
Fournier
forgery
|
|
|
Forgery Type II
|
 |
- The coloured triangle in the right ornament is very asymmetric on the
forgeries, and the ends of the vertical bars are blunt or deformed. On the Fournier
forgeries, the lower corner of the triangle touches the ornament below.
- The "drop" or petal hanging from the vertical ornaments is well shaped and mostly
connected on genuine stamps, but separate ovals on the forgeries. This is the case
for both forgeries, although the Type II is also partly connected.
- The tiny appendix inside the left ornament is almost non-existent on the
Type II forgeries, but slightly better on the Fournier issues.
- Note also the different shapes of the numbers "1804".
- Shading between figures and ornaments is almost completely coloured on the
Type II forgeries, less so on the Fournier issues. The genuine issues have fairly
distinct lines.
|
Genuine
|
Fournier forgery
|
Forgery Type II
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Genuine
|
|
Fournier
forgery
|
|
|
Forgery Type II
|
|
Mi #79
Forgery Type II
|
Fournier Forgery
|
For this issue, I can only show the two forgery types. Again,
both the original stamps and the two forgeries are line perforated 11 1/2. The main
design characteristics of this issue are mostly the same as above:
- Little difference in the top text between genuine issues and Type II
forgeries. This particular difference is more important for the Fournier
forgeries, especially the shape of the cyrillic letter "P".
Fournier
forgery
|
|
|
Forgery Type II
|
|
- The star above the portraits is heavily deformed on both forgeries.
- The coloured triangle in the right ornament is very asymmetric on the Type II
forgeries, and the ends of the vertical bars are blunt. On the Fournier
forgeries, the lower corner of the triangle touches the ornament below.
- The "drop" or petal hanging from the vertical ornaments are separate ovals on
both forgeries.
- The tiny appendix inside the left ornament is almost non-existent on the
Type II forgeries, but slightly better on the Fournier issues.
- Shading between figures and ornaments is almost completely coloured on the
Type II forgeries, less so on the Fournier issues.
|
Fournier forgery
|
Forgery Type II
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Fournier
forgery
|
|
|
Forgery Type II
|
|
Mi #80
Forgery Type II
|
Genuine
|
In this case, I can only show a Type II forgery. However, the design characteristics
are the same as for the issues shown above, including a Fournier possible forgery of this issue:
- Little difference in the top text between genuine issues and Type II forgeries.
|
Forgery
|
|
- The star above the portraits is heavily deformed.
- The coloured triangle in the right ornament is very asymmetric, and the ends
of the vertical bars are blunt.
- The "drop" or petal hanging from the vertical ornaments is deformed to a separate
oval.
- The tiny appendix inside the left ornament is almost non-existent.
- Shading between figures and ornaments is almost completely coloured.
Sources:
- Expert: Billig's Grosses Handbuch der Faelschungen, Lieferung Nr. 30: Serbien,
O. Stiedl, F. Billig, 1936
- Fournier's 1914 Price-list of Philatelic Forgeries, Introduced by L. Ragatz, 1958
