The Stamps of the Suez Canal Company 1868 - Thirteenth Forgery
Previous * Return to Introduction * Next * 1 * 2* 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 * 9 * 10 * 11 * 12 * 13 * 14 * 15 * 16 * 17 * 18
Attribution: None

Designations: Boulad: Not Classified   Barefoot: Not Classified

Denominations: 40 cent only


Forgery 13 - 40 Cents

  1. Crosshatching of a sort between Postes and DE SUEZ but this is smudged and not very convincing.
  2. There are 11 rays round the right hand sunburst. The 2 o’clock ray is missing. There are 11 rays round the left but these are evenly spaced, rays 2 and 4 being thickened so as to give the whole a balanced appearance.
  3. The C of Canal touches the oval frame, as does the D of DE.
  4. The A of MARITIME is blind.
  5. There is a large spot of colour joining the 4 and the zero in the top left hand value tablet.
  6. There is a white flaw on the smokestack but this neither as large nor as centrally placed as is the case with the 1c Saatjian forgeries
If the stamp is in fact a Reprint /forgery derived from the original 40c stone it should match one of the four transfer types which make up this stone and the thickened top to the letter E of Suez would point to Transfer type D as the most likely possibility.

The next step was to examine the reproduction of the complete 40c Saatjian sheet to see if a match could be found for the defective right hand sunburst. The stamp at position 92 looked a likely candidate in that the right hand sunburst displayed defects similar to those of our specimen. It also exhibited the thickened E of Suez which was added evidence for our specimen being a Saatjian Reprint/Forgery.

The Plating guide given in Boulad, Ringstrom & Tester does not give any characteristic constant flaws relating to position 92, but the reproduction showing the one extant complete sheet does show damage to the right hand sunburst at position 92.

It seems likely therefore that Forgery 13 is in fact a Saatjian product arising from the original 40c stone. Enlargements of both our specimen and the stamp at position 92 on the Saatjian sheet are displayed in Appendix 13.1 and demonstrate sufficient points of similarity as to put beyond doubt the validity of our conclusion.

I think on balance it must be regarded as a sub type of Forgery Boulad 18 rather than a discrete forgery in its own right.