Studie zu den ersten Bundesmarken der Schweiz und Ihre Fälschungen

A Study of the Swiss Federal Administration Issued Stamps, 1850 - 1854, and their Forgeries

by Professor Anton M. Kofranek Linden Lane Publishing Co., Davis, CA 95616-1721 E-mail:amkofranek@ucdavis.edu

Preface

Many years ago I wrote an article entitled “Forgeries of the Federal Issue of Switzerland, 1850-1854” (Kofranek, 1982). It was my first attempt to report on my studies of that issue. I asked persons who read the article to share their forgeries with me for a future study. One man, to whom I am indebted, responded by sending his entire forgery collection to me by registered post from England. That was Frank Buhlstrode. His collection contained an award-winning group of Sperati’s. With my book on Sperati (Anonymous 1955), I could examine for myself how clever a forger Sperati was. At a later date, Mr. Buhlstrode’s eyes began to fail and he offered me his collection through his friend Mr. H.L. Katcher of London. I purchased that Sperati collection and added to it through the years until I had 85 copies of Swiss forgeries and so-called proofs of Sperati. Many of these will appear in this writing and hopefully will be clear enough for the reader to study. In addition to the Speratis, other collectors also sent their forgeries. Many of these I had only seen occasionally, and some were new to me. I worked on the revision of that original 10-page article mentioned above. In addition to studying the forgeries, I was compelled to study the original issue for details that would reveal to me the characteristics of the genuine stamps. Most forgeries were relatively easy to detect except for Sperati’s reproductions, which also baffled many experts until the book published by the British Philatelic Association, London, was offered in 1955. A detailed account of his activities follows in Chapter 7 devoted entirely to Jean de Sperati. Over my forty years of collecting Swiss stamps, I became interested in forgeries since I had seen so many obvious ones in old collections. Most, however, were Cantonals and there were many writings about those Cantonal forgeries of the early Swiss issues. There was none or very little scattered information about the Federal issue of 1850-54. Perhaps there was little interest in them as the price of those stamps was very low at the turn of the last century. Names such as Spiro and Fournier dominate many of the forged values of the Federals. Sperati was a latecomer to the scene and I believe the most deceiving forger of them all. My goal was defined and I was determined to update my first article on the Federals of 1850-54. Frank Buhlstrode’s collection was an inspiration in itself as he had many forgeries other than that of Sperati which I could study for paper quality and cancellations. Other collectors read my article and also loaned me their forgeries for study. I later went to see the forgery collection held by the Royal Philatelic Society of London (RPSL), the British Museum and the Philatelic Collection and the archives of the Stamp Museum in Bern, Switzerland. The accounts of these visits are in the Appendix section B, C and D. I was able to study paper quality cancellations and possible sources of those forgeries. After having seen and studied forgeries in those collections, I was able to write a chapter on those particular forgeries; however, I did not include the Speratis in that group. The Speratis are covered very well in the book about him (Anonymous 1955). I included in this study as a reproduction of sections of the “Works of Jean de Sperati” since the book is now out of print. It will help the advanced collector to study as I have Sperati’s reproductions with the many illustrations I supply. There are numerous colored reproductions of Sperati’s forgeries from my own collection and some photos which were loaned by RPSL and the Swiss Museum of Philately. Those Sperati reproductions illustrated herein which once belonged to the author’s collection will have an “AC” in the caption. Others will be properly noted to give credit. This work supplied on a compact disk (CD) was written solely by the author without much review. It was intended that this work be attributed entirely to myself, and I take full responsibility for its content. Having been a professor for 38 years at the University of California, at both campuses of UCLA and at Davis, I know full well what it is to publish and be criticized for one’s research papers. I welcome any criticism once this work becomes public. Unfortunately I do not have command of either French or German although I had to pass a limited test of both languages for my doctoral degree. The author thanks Mr. Henry Ratz of Fiddletown, CA for translating some sections of Dr. Munk’s and Dr. Muller’s article, and Mr. Jan Doorenbos of the Netherlands for translating some selected German passages. The author is also indebted to Mrs. Lois M. Evans-de Violini of Oxnard, CA for inspiring him to complete this work on a CD and for her help in actually doing the set up, and to her husband, Robert de Violini for his assistance with some of the fine-tuning needed in the latter stages of this publication. Also, thanks to the two women who typed most of these sections, Mrs. Isabel Ashkar and Mrs. Wyn Floyd. Without them I would have been lost. I would also like to thank my son, John, for positioning given stamps to certain types and stones. He contributed to this work after my eyes were not able to see detail. There are many persons who loaned me forgeries, articles and photos who are too numerous to mention. My heartfelt thanks to those persons and those that encouraged me to finish this work at the age of 78 with eyesight failing rapidly. I am extremely happy that my son has interest in my Swiss stamp collection and its forgeries. It is reassuring to know that parts of the collection will stay in the family for at least one generation more. I hope John has as much pleasure from collecting stamps as I have had. See photo of the author and his son.

Something about the author Anton M. Kofranek was born in Chicago, Illinois on February 5, 1921 of Czech immigrant parents. He attended high school at Morton High in Cicero, Illinois and graduated in 1939. He attended the University of Minnesota studying for a forestry degree. He was then “asked” to join the U.S. Army in 1942. He went overseas to the European Theater and then left in July 1945 from Marsailles, France, for the Pacific Theater of War. He was later in the Japanese occupation forces until 1946. He returned to the University of Minnesota but changed his major to horticulture and graduated in 1947. He attended Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. for graduate studies and received both an MS and Ph.D. by September 1950. He moved with his family to Los Angeles after he was offered the position of instructor of floriculture at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). He then moved to the Davis Campus of the University of California (UCD) in 1968. He retired there in 1987 as a Professor Emeritus after a very satisfying career in commercial floriculture as a plant physiologist. He first became interested in Swiss stamps in the Netherlands where he had a sabbatical year. He became reacquainted with Dr. Jan Doorenbos, co-author of the Standing Helvetia book. Dr. Doorenbos and he once cooperated in a research study on chrysanthemums at UCLA. The author’s son, then only 10, became interested in the beautiful Swiss stamps so we both began to collect that country. Then he took over until John was interested enough again to resume collecting. Of course, he enjoyed the classics including an occasional Cantonal issue which were beyond his budget. Studying the Strubelis, the Federals and the Standing Helvetia were uppermost in his interest. Forgeries of all the Swiss were interesting to the author which inspired him to write his first article for the American Philatelic Society in July, 1982. It took many years to come to preparing a CD of the works that follow. The author was discouraged many times. In addition to collecting Swiss, he collected the 1861 issue of the United States. Actually, his U.S. collecting began in 1933 when only 12. The collection was dormant through college and war years but awakened in 1950 when some time was again available.

The author is or has been a member of several philatelic societies or groups, namely: • A life member of the American Philatelic Society (since 1950) • A member of the American Helvetia Philatelic Society • A member of the Royal Philatelic Society of London • A retiree of the Helvetia Philatelic Society (U.K.) • A retiree of the U.S. Philatelic Classics Society. As mentioned before the author takes full responsibility for the contents of this work. In his 38 years as a professor of floriculture he had to follow certain guidelines of Journals in which he reported his research. It irritated him no end for a reviewer to want to change his style of writing. Now at 78, he is free. The test of this writing will be in the ultimate sale of the CD to fellow stamp collectors. If the review is not good, it will not sell. The same thing happens on Broadway! Introduction There is considerable written material on the Swiss Cantonal issues and their forgeries, but there is very little written on the Federal Administration issues that followed. Perhaps the philatelic value of the Federal issues was too low at the time that many of the Cantonal forgeries were being researched, and the need for such a Federal issue study may not have been warranted. I wrote an article for the American Philatelic Society in July 1982 and this present research is an update on that article. Throughout my forty years of serious collecting I have accumulated bogus stamps, some through ignorance but lately by design, to study and compare them to the originals. I know that the many forged versions of the Federal issues to which I have access are perhaps not complete, but the intention of this article is to alert philatelists to some of those that do exist Postage stamp forgeries occur for two reasons: to circumvent postage payment, or to deceive philatelists, especially where high-valued stamps are concerned. Another reason mentioned — but hardly logical — is that the reproduction of postage stamps is an art form and forgeries were printed to illustrate how many of the classic stamps of the nineteenth century appeared. In the early 1900’s, Fournier of Switzerland forged classic stamps of great value of all countries. He sold those to philatelists at low prices to help complete their collections (Ragatz 1970). When forgeries are not clearly marked as “facsimiles” or overprinted with “faux” (false), these reproductions create a philatelic problem which might not separate these accurately reproduced forgeries from the official government-issued postage stamps. A case in point were those forgeries produced by Jean de Sperati. The history of the Federal issues is important to the study of the forgeries of this 1850-54 issue. These stamps were lithographed, therefore were relatively easy to forge, and some forgeries were excellent. To avoid the possible danger of forgery, the Federal Council wanted to change from these lithographed stamps to ones that were typographed, embossed, and had a silk thread. The change was to be made as early as January 1, 1852, but took place only on October 1, 1854. The History of the Federal Administration Issues ordered by the Confederate Postal Administration The Confederation claimed authority for the postal control over the territory from January 1, 1849. That administration only delineated postal districts and established laws concerning rates, but did not yet manufacture any postage stamps for these purposes. Some of the cantons supplied those stamps during the transition period. The Federal Council did make postage stamps available on April 5, 1850, to centers of large populations, to be used as prepayment on letters. These stamps were the 2-1/2-rappen “Poste Locale” and “Orts-Post,” which were produced by Karl Durheim of Bern. They were lithographed on white wove paper and were rectangular, about 22-1/2 by 18 mm in size. The inscription band, the arabesques, the escutcheon, were black and except for the white cross in the center, the area surrounding the cross was a vivid red. The words “Poste Locale” or “Orts-Post,” which measure slightly less than 1 mm in height, and never touched the inscription band. The values of “2-1/2” appeared within the left open circle below and the “RP” in the right open circle. A spiral cord or rope, not entirely black, enclosed the white portion of the stamp. The first issue of Poste Locale value had the white cross bordered by a thin black frame. Occasionally the red area around the white cross shifted as much as 0.5 mm and were troublesome to the printer. In June 1850 both kinds of the 2-1/2-rappen appeared without the frames on the cross. They were removed from the original stone, but often not completely, so partial frames do exist (Munk, 1950). Appendix F offers three complete articles on the framing of the cross. Forty different types were transferred to a stone, arranged eight horizontally by five vertically. The forty types were latter transferred to a stone and repeated two or four times to create sheets of 80 or 160 stamps. Accurate colored reproductions of these forty types of the Post Locale and Orts-Post appear in the Zumstein’s Special Catalog (Hersch, 1924). These photo reproductions and many original copies of stamps are the main source for comparison with the forgeries of these Federal issues that the author is evaluating presently. See Chapter 5 for photos. The Handbook of the Postage Stamp of Switzerland by Ernest Zumstein (1910) and The Postage Stamps of Switzerland by Mirabaud and Reuterskiold (1899), both make mention of the printer having had troubles with the top row and the right vertical column of the Orts-Post issue. Some of the stamps in these positions were defective and the printer replaced those on the original stone with types that were not damaged. This substitution caused some later sheets to contain duplicate types in the top row of the right column. See Chapter 3 on “lithography” for further details. The Poste Locale and Orts-Post were issued to serve in the French- and German-speaking cantons of Switzerland, respectively; however, both issues were frequently used in either section. These two stamps, each having a low value, were issued for local use but also were used for greater distances, when adequate multiples were placed on envelopes. The higher values which followed were designed for different rayons (mailing zones), depending on distance from the mailing source and on the letter weight. A circular of the Federal Council on April 5, 1850, announced that prepaid letters would be carried at the following tariffs (Mirabaud and Reuterskiold, 1899). Up to 2 loth (1 ounce) inclusive 2-1/2 rappen From 2 to 4 loths (1-2 ounces) 5 rappen From 4 to 8 loths (2-4 ounces) 10 rappen These charges were used for local and even frontier areas, but were not valid for foreign mails (Anonymous, 1993). The circular also stated, “Stamps of 5 and 10 rappen will shortly be issued: these may also be used for the local post in such cases.” On October 1, 1850, the dark blue Rayon I and the yellow Rayon II issues were placed on sale. From October 1, 1850 all domestic letters were to be franked with stamps; however that was slow to come about. In 1856 only 25% of domestic mail was stamped and in 1860 only 33%. When the postal law of 1862 stated that a 5 Rp increase would be added to mail not stamped, the use of stamps increased to 68% in 1863 (Anonymous 1993). The Rayon I stamp was black and red on a dark blue background applied to white paper. There were several shades, the gray-blue background being the most common. This stamp was first thought to have been printed with a black frame around the cross and later erased from the stone; however, there is some controversy over this point. (See Appendix F.) The stamp lacking the frame around the cross, however, is more common than the one having the frame. The Rayon II stamps was also a tricolor: i.e., black and red on a yellow background, printed on white paper. The framing on the cross on this stamp is indeed rare, but sometimes one can see what appears to be a transparent oily film around the cross; this transparency is supposed to be the remnants of the frame after its removal from the stone (Figure 2_1). Both of these Rayon issues were printed in groups of forty (eight by five), with two or four of the groups on a full sheet. There are forty basic types, which are identifiable by the ground lines that lie outside the cord (Figures 5_5a and 5_5b). There are other differences amongst the forty types, such as in the shapes of letters, numbers, and arabesques, but the identification of any of the forty types is much more definite by studying the diverse patterns of the background lines. Color reproductions of the forty types of Rayon I and II also appear in Zumstein’s 1924 Special Catalog (see Chapter 5). These two issues on a dark blue or yellow background were expensive to print. On September 9, 1850, the Postal Control issued an order to try color changes on the existing stones. The Rayon I was changed to light blue on white paper with a red shield. This change was successful, but when the Rayon II was changed to just yellow on white (with a red shield), it was not clearly visible in certain light. This latter trial was discontinued, but the plans to print the light blue (sometimes a darker blue) Rayon I on a white wove paper were implemented. The exact date of issue for that Rayon I is not known, but the first known cancellation date was April 16, 1851 (Mirabaud and Reuterskiold, 1899). Remnants of the frame, two to four sides around the cross, appear occasionally on these stamps of the light blue Rayon I (Figure 2_2). Partial framing, however, is very rarely found on the Rayon II crosses but one is shown here as Type 7, A 2, LU (Figure 2_3). The Federal Council of the Confederation was planning a new series of stamps, the imperforate sitting Helvetia, with a silk thread, to be ready for distribution by January 1, 1852. The engraver, M. Weiss of Munich, Germany, was unable to supply these stamps because the process was very complicated. Because of the delay in delivery of the new issue from Germany, it was decided that the Rayon I and II would continue in use for the first two limits of distance. However, another value of 15 rappen for the third rayon was required to accommodate greater distance for mail delivery. At this time, however, there was a discrepancy between the values of the centimes in the French cantons and the rappen in the German cantons. The change to equalize the monetary values was to take place on January 1, 1852, and to make the transition smooth, no stamps were sold at Swiss post offices for the period between December 25, 1851, and January 1, 1852. The complication of postal rates being fixed during this period is explained in detail in Mirabaud and Reuterskiold (1899) under the section of “Rayon III.” The Rayon III stamp, small numeral, was to be printed in red and black, but actually was done entirely in red. That first transfer was taken from the second and third vertical rows of the Orts-Post stone, which were without any serious defects. (See “lithography” in Chapter 3) As the small numeral Rayon III stamps were transferred from these two vertical rows of the Orts-Post stone, the stamps were printed in small panes of ten as illustrated in Hertsch (1924) or Mirabaud and Reutershiold (1899). These panes of ten were placed side by side vertically to form a large pane of forty, which in turn was repeated again four times to form a sheet of 160, as were the other Federal issues (Westoby, 1903). (See Figure 4_5.) The “small numeral” issue was supposed to be used for only a few months, until the silk thread issues were ready. This was not the case, however, and a greater number of Rayon III values had to be printed. The transfers used for the “small numeral” issue probably were effaced by the time this decision to print more was made. New transfers were then made from the fourth and fifth vertical rows of the Orts-Post stone, which were also free of defects. The inscription “Rayon III” was changed as before, but the numeral “15” in the lower left circle was made larger than in the previous issue. Thereafter it was referred to as the “large numeral” issue. The exact appearance date of this issue is not known, but is estimated to be in mid-1852. These too were made in panes of 10 but the panes were duplicated into a large sheet of 90 (Colombi et al, 1980). All of the Rayons were declared invalid on October 1, 1854, when the silk thread issue of the sitting Helvetia was issued for use. Many of the unused copies of the entire Rayon issue were returned and destroyed by the postal authorities. The quantities sold and those later destroyed are tabulated in Zumstein’s Handbook of the Postage Stamps of Switzerland (1910). Lithography and the Federal Administration Issues Some knowledge of lithography is necessary to fully appreciate the Swiss Federal series and the way they were printed. We talk of stones of the Rayon I, II and III issues, but we have little appreciation for the printing process. We read of transfer “stones”, but few of us know how it was done so many years ago. The following information on lithography might help the collector of this issue to understand the various stones and their transfer procedures for the final Federal printing process. The word lithography is from the Greek word lithos for “stone” and graph “to write”. The printing process of lithography was developed by Alois Senefelder in 1798. He found that flat, porous, Kelheim limestone found in Solnhofer, Bavaria would accept ink after having been marked with a greasy crayon. The stone was then moistened with water to protect the unprinted areas from greasy ink. The printed area in general was no higher than the moist non-printed areas. The printing process was based on the premise that water is repelled by grease. Lithography using a limestone surface is based on three principles: 1) grease and water do not mix, 2) limestone naturally absorbs grease easily and 3) oily printing ink is attracted to the greasy surface and is repelled by the aqueous treated areas. (Schreiber 1990). Stone lithography begins with a very smooth limestone surface. This is accomplished with a rubbing of flint sand or carborundum. The stone must be wiped clean before applying the greasy images. The stone must be free of perspiration or finger prints because of possible grease contamination. Should mistakes be made in drawing, they can be removed with a rotation of fine carborundum, or covered with Chinese white which is then made smooth (Encyclopedia Britannica 1954). One advantage of using stones is that they can be used again by grinding the stone down to a smooth surface again. There are two possibilities of applying the greasy crayon or tusche to the printing stone. One is to apply it directly to an “urstein” or an original die stone (Colombi et al 1980), and the other is to use the greasy crayon on a special paper that has the characteristics to affect the transfer of the images to the stone when pressed or rolled. By using the latter technique a positive drawing would be made by the artist with ease. The paper transfer technique was used for the most part in printing the Federal Issue of Switzerland. Another possibility, but not a likely process, is to apply the images directly to a printing stone. The lithographer makes drawings in reverse (negative) on a clean stone with a crayon which is limited as to thinness of the lines, but thin lines can be made with tusche, a form of liquid crayon. Tusche is made up of soap, lampblack, wax, spermeceti, tallow and shellac (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1954). It is, therefore, possible to make fine lines with liquid tusche. The portion of stone left undrawn is treated with gum arabic or applications of acidified solution of gum arabic which forms a film that covers all but the drawn greasy area. After the gum arabic treatment has had time to set, the stone is washed with a solvent such as turpentine until the images seem to disappear. The designs are not lost but reappear when these greasy images attract the ink that is rolled onto the stone. When the ink roller is run over the stone, the greasy design absorbs the ink, but is not absorbed by those portions of the stone treated with the gum arabic solution. Water is constantly flowing over the stone during the printing process. Special printing paper is placed between the stone and roller or press and after proper pressure is applied, the drawings appear on the paper. Lithographer’s printing ink was originally made of linseed oil as one important ingredient (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1954). A different stone is used for each color. The roller made of wood applies enough pressure to make a good impression the first time. The stone is first moistened and the water is readily absorbed in the gum arabic treated areas. When the ink is applied by small rollers, it is absorbed by the drawn oily surface, but is rejected by the aqueous areas. Paper is moved on the roller which rolls it over the drawn areas and comes out a printed subject (Figure 3_1). In the case of the Federal issues which have a red central area, the paper had to be passed through again over another stone with red ink to register the red area. All of the Federal stones for printing, except the Rayon III’s, were first printed with black ink and then with another stone, a second pass was made for the red shield (Wappen). This was carefully set and printed to match the “waiting” escutcheon area. When a black frame “ready” to surround the white cross on the red shield was not applied accurately, there was a shift (Figure 4_1). It is reported that the printer had difficulty at times when the red area had to be matched with the black line surrounding the white cross (Mirabaud and Reuterskiold, 1899). See Figure C_3. Colombi et al (1980) illustrated the various shapes of the red shields used in the Rayon I issues. If a pressure printer was used, it was made of boxwood and greased leather. Pressure was applied with a screw. Many series of prints could be made, but the stone had to be “gummed down” frequently with gum arabic to keep the non-greased areas intact. The more convenient way of producing lithographs was to apply the drawings to a special transfer paper. The images were drawn as they would be seen after printing. Errors were more easily corrected by scraping out. The transfer paper with its greasy but positive images was then placed carefully on the stone to make a reverse image for the printing process. One can imagine that small flecks of tusche not readily seen by the naked eye would be transferred to the stone as well. These small flecks are now identifying features of various positions of the Rayon I, II and III stones. These flecks remained as permanent features of a position of a stamp on the stone. This was true of Sperati’s forgeries as well which he created by a photo lithographic process in the 1930’s. The blemishes in his forgeries became telltale characteristic marks for identifying his forgeries of the Federal and other Swiss issues that were originally produced by the lithographic process. More on his forgeries is found in Appendix A. A major transfer which was made in the Federal issues is as follows: transfers were made from the second and third columns of the Orts-Post stone to make up the Rayon III, small numeral stamps. These 2 columns were free of defects and were changed to read Rayon III at the top instead of Orts-Post. For the small “15 Rp” issue, the “Rp” remained intact. A small “15” replaced the “2-1/2” in the lower left circle. The small “15 Cts” was made only after enough small “15 Rp” copies were thought to be adequate. The “Rp” in the lower right circle was then removed and replaced with “Cts”. Other changes were made in the shield area, but even after redrawing, many of the characteristics of the Orts-Post still remained and were transferred to a new Rayon III stone. There were 300,000 of the “small 15 Rp” but only 100,000 of the “small 15 Cts” values ordered. All the “Cts” on the stone are relatively uniform, except there is no tail at the bottom of the “t” in Type 1, and the “t” in Type 7 is short compared to the other nine types. For comparable types, the small numeral “15 Rp” and the “Cts” versions are alike in all respects because the numerals were not altered when changing the monetary sign from German to French symbols of currency. Similarly, columns 4 and 5 of the Orts-Post were used for transfer to remake a new Rayon III stone, large numeral. Many changes were made as mentioned above except the “Rp” in the lower right circle remained unchanged. (Mirabaud and Reuterskiold, 1899). An interesting aberration was reported by Mirabaud and Reuterskiold (1899) concerning a damaged Orts-Post stone. The number 1 position was defective and was replaced with a position 3. Thus the stone positions read 3, 2, 3, 4. These stamps were discovered on a letter posted with the 4 stamps. They were in 2 strips of two, but by matching the cut they really found them to be from a top strip of 4. How was the repair of the position accomplished? One strong possibility is as follows: first, position 1 was defaced on the stone and made smooth; second, position 3 being a pristine copy, was transferred to a special paper that was coated prior to transfer with a water-sensitive substance that would retain the image when pressed. When heat or moisture was applied, this image of position 3 was transferred to position 1 on the stone. This process is called decalcomania. It is similarly used to color Easter eggs with images to commemorate the holiday. Mirabaud and Reuterskoild (1899) and Zumstein (1910) give other examples of similar replacements of types on the Orts-Post stones. Thus damaged positions could be replaced or entire columns could be transferred. These were then altered as in the Rayon III from the pristine Orts-Post columns as mentioned above.

The above background knowledge of lithography might help the student of the “stones of the Rayons” to partially understand how these stones are different from one another and therefore can be located as to the exact position on a given stone. The books of Columbi et al (1980), Muller (1967) and Gees (1970) illustrate minute details of each position of the series Rayon I, Rayon II and Rayon III, respectively. The use of the word “plating” in stamp collecting usually implies that the printing was done with a metal plate. Perhaps in this case “positioning” on the stone would be more appropriate. The author was reminded that the German lithographers used to refer to the stones as “eine steinplatte”, which means a stone plate. So, one may use “plating” or “positioning” depending on his preference. In addition to the above, a reading of Appendix E of the Dr. Herbert Munk article (1950) will also shed some light on this subject of lithography and how the Federal stamps were printed. Another controversial point of these issues is the bordered cross. Some contend that the early issues first had borders and in time were removed. With the writings of Moore (1959), Nussbaum (1963) and Mirabaud and de Reuterskiold (1899), their opinions in Appendix F complete with some discussion of lithography, one may draw his own conclusions of the framing of the cross and its removal. More information on lithography as it applies to the Federal issues follows in Chapter 4. One must understand the transfer process from transfer paper to the final printing stone to appreciate those many stamps that we know by stone and position on that stone. Before leaving the subject, I would like to talk about the creation of Rayon III from the Orts-Post stone. My theory is that a transfer to paper was made and then on that positive image paper, removal of “Orts-Post” from the inscription band was accomplished by pasting paper over Orts-Post. After removal, the replacement title could have been made over the replacement paper in order to transfer the changed images to a new stone. It almost appears that there were two different art-technicians working on the small numeral Rayon III and the large numeral Rayon III. Why? Note in the first issue where the letters “Rayon III” in the inscription band are upright and in the second issue (Large 15), “Rayon III” is in a slanted position. It is unfortunate that Karl Durheim’s records were destroyed. Definite answers to these suggestions would be most interesting to study. The Printing Stones of the Federal Administration Issues Poste Locale The first stamps of the Federal issue in 1850 were the Poste Locale and Ort-Post. It is reported that there were two stones prepared of the Poste Locale. One was very finely done, perhaps with a thin line tusche used directly on the stone (Figure 4_1). This is only a theory of the author who has seen a few of that issue which have extremely fine lines. It must have been a favorite of Sperati who forged copies of this in different stone positions (Figures A_34 and A_35). The other Poste Locale stone was slightly worn and it was the one which had the cross removed (March 1851). Later two transfers were made from the original stone and placed one above the other (Munk, 1950). At this juncture I would like to include several paragraphs of direct quotes from Mirabaud and de Reuterskoild (1899) for the purpose of bringing out a controversial point concerning the Poste Locale’s issue of two stones. After the conclusion of these quoted paragraphs, I will offer a theory that may be disputed by many collectors of the Federal issue of Switzerland. “Two varieties are found in the stamps of 2-1/2 rappen, which will be met with again in “Rayons I and II”. The white cross is sometimes not framed and sometimes surrounded with a black line, which, in the “Poste Locale”, is of the same thickness throughout, and, in the “Orts-Post”, is thicker on the right and on the lower sides of the cross. As the papers of Durheim, the lithographer, have been destroyed, it is impossible to say exactly when this change took place. We shall revert to this subject when we study the “Rayons”, and we hope to show that the questions is not so obscure as at first sight appears. “A careful examination of the “Poste Locale” stamps has led us to point out a fact that has not hitherto been noted. This is the probable existence of two different impressions of these stamps, one from the original engraved stone, the other from a lithographic transfer of the original design. “It is known that the “Poste Locale” stamps exist in two distinct varieties easily recognized by their tint, the ones being very black, the others of a characteristic grey. The opinion is held that this difference is not due simply to the printing-ink. Among the grey stamps, a certain number are distinguishable by the greater clearness of the engraving, and the pale colour is due to the delicacy of the drawing; while in the case of the black impressions, the darker shade is the result of the thickness of the lithographic lines. “In the grey stamps of which the printing is sharp and clear, it is easy to see that the plain white background is bordered by a sort of cable formed of two parallel lines; between these two outer lines and at right angles thereto will be found numerous small strokes which are intended to complete the resemblance to a cable; these small lines (or shading), in the blacker stamps, have become so blurred as to transform the cable into a single thick black line. “A more minute examination discloses another peculiarity consisting in an exceedingly fine line, which, in certain places, follows the outer and sometimes the inner line of the cable (Figure 4_1). This very fine line, which cannot be seen without the aid of a powerful glass, is placed at a fraction of a millimetre from the cable and is always parallel to it, except in the curves, where it approaches the principal line, and joins it where this main line turns. The parallel position of these two lines, ceasing in the curves, cannot well be explained except by the lithographer’s use of a tool with a defective edge which produced a second fine line by the side of the correct one. If this is the case, it can readily be understood that the two marks would necessarily remain equidistant when the line drawn was straight; when, however, the instrument was turned to draw a curve, the second line, resulting from the imperfection suggested, would merge into the principal one. “In the black specimens, this fine line has disappeared, as also the shading of the cable, -- no trace of which is left. We are therefore justified in concluding, as before mentioned, that these copies were not printed from the original stone, but were obtained by means of a transfer that has caused a thickening of the lines of the original drawing. This hypothesis seems to us more plausible than that which attributes this thickening to the gradual wear of the stone; for the difference is too marked between the clearly printed grey stamps and the different stages of the black ones, to be explained by the gradual wearing down of the surface of the stone.” After having read these paragraphs above, I would like to mention these few points. First, these authors say that Karl Durheim’s records were destroyed, therefore at this date, it is difficult to know what procedures he did use to print the Federal issue, especially on the two different printings of Poste Locale. This also means that speculation is available to anyone having a plausible theory based on a sound background. Assuming he used the techniques common to true lithography (see the Lithography chapter), then Durheim would not have engraved the stone as Mirabaud and de Reuterskoild suggest in these paragraphs. Durheim may have made an etching or even an engraving in metal and then transferred it to paper for its final transfer to the printing stone. This method described in the final paragraph of this Poste Locale section deals with the procedure of printing via an etching. Another method would be to have used crayon to grease transfer paper and then make transfers from the paper to a printing stone. The usual procedure was for the artist to make a plan (drawing) on paper, and then that drawing being a positive image, was then covered with a greasy crayon. The greasy drawing would then be placed very carefully over a prepared stone and pressed down to set the greasy images into the porous stone. When set to the satisfaction of the printer, the stone would be “gummed down” with an aqueous gum arabic solution to set the images. Once set, washed, etc. this stone becomes the original or die stone for printing or for future transfers from that stone to paper and later to another final printing stone. In the case of the first Poste Locale stone with the fine print, it probably was the original or die stone from which that first printing was made. Perhaps Karl Durheim made some printings with this stone, but then finally made transfers to a stone which became the printing stone for the second printing. This was originally suggested by Mirabaud and de Reuterskoild in the above quotation. Colombi et al (1980) report in their writings about the Rayon I stamps, that 40 individual drawings were made on “Urstein” (original stone) and these were then transferred to a printing stone. However, there are some questions about this method of transferring greasy images from a heavy stone to a printing stone. First allow me to give what I believe is evidence against an artist drawing 40 different stamp images on an original stone and then transferring those greasy images to a printing stone. An original single die stone having minimum dimensions of 18 x 14 cm with a thickness of perhaps no less than 4 cm would weigh about 5.7 kg or 12.5 pounds, assuming a specific gravity of 2.65 for limestone. After having made the 40 greasy images on this heavy stone, one would have difficulty maneuvering that stone gently and placing it on a printing stone without smudging or smearing those greasy images. A more plausible method would be to make those 40 different images on transfer paper and then gently and accurately placing these greasy images on to a printing stone. As mentioned this is not a new theory, but one that might have been done for easy maneuverability. The above calculations are for a single stone which is not usual. A dual or a quadruple stone is more common. All one has to do is multiply 5.7 kg or 12.5 pounds by 2 or 4 to calculate how heavy those printing stones were. As mentioned, it would be difficult to transfer from one stone to another because of weight; however if these 40 original drawings were made as negative images on that stone, these negative images would have been transferred to paper for the purpose of finally transferring it to a printing stone. Of course, that original stone could have been used as a die stone for printing as well.

With subsequent printings, Dr. Munk mentions that the second stone was worn. However, after the die stone was used for transfers many times the images may have given a “worn look”. Also the “gumming down” probably did not help to keep the images correct as the process did when the original transfers were new. Another possibility is the crayon or tusche from the first and only transfer to the second printing stone was gradually being exhausted, and, therefore the printing stone was not absorbing the ink properly as in earlier printings when the stone was “new”. Unless these lithographic stones can be found to prove that engravings were indeed made, I am content with my explanation of the creation of the two vastly different Poste Locale stones and the way they were used in printing those two different grades of stamps from one original drawing, be it on stone or on transfer paper. Engravings can be made in metal or perhaps stone in reverse (as for engraved stamps), but grease applied to those raised etched surfaces must then be applied to transfer paper. This transfer paper would have positive images that would finally be transferred to a printing stone as a negative image ready for printing after being properly treated with gum arabic to set those images. The following plan of producing stamps by way of engraving is offered by Boggs (1955) on page 123. Assuming that the final printed stamps are normally flat as lithographic stamps are, and if engraved dies would be employed in the process, the following set of procedures would be used: Stages Condition of the Design 1. The artist’s drawing Normal position drawing 2. The die Negative, flat, sunken or raised 3. The transfer paper Normal, positive 4. The printing stone Negative, flat 5. The printed stamps Positive, flat

Should Karl Durheim have used an engraved die in his printing of the fine line Poste Locale, he most likely would have used the procedure outlined above. Perhaps Mr. Durheim’s first experiences with the Federals compelled him to think of using more printing stones in the future, to avoid the stone from printing stamps that would look as though they came from a worn stone. When in using the same transfer paper 2 or 4 times to make a dual or quadruple printing stone, each stone was slightly different from its neighbor. Of course, every time a transfer was made to a new printing stone, particles of minute debris, flecks or specks of crayon, possibly tusche, became part of that particular printing stone. These later became the characters for identifying the various Federal stones and positions of stamps in the books we know today. Orts-Post There is no information reliable enough to guess the size of the Orts-Post stone. Based on research, it was assumed that it was a single stone. The crosses were removed from the first two printings, but that was done only after they had been in use for several months, May through July of 1851 (Munk, 1950). Rayon I, Dark Blue The Rayon I, dark blue was first printed from dual stones, one above the other. Four dual stones, A 1, A 1a, A 2 and A 3 were used for about six months, from September 1850 to March 1851. The color change to light blue came during this period with printings from stones A 2 and A 3 (Munk, 1944). The final dark blue stone was the A 3 and it had an arrangement of 2x2 and printed 160 stamps (Munk, 1950). This was at the same time that the Rayon II, A 3 with a similar 160 stamp configuration appeared in October 1850.

There were many colors of the dark blue that ranged from blue gray, violet gray, green blue to simply gray; the latter was from an A 1a stone (Munk, 1950). See Figure 4_8 for examples of these colors. Munk also mentioned that the “so called” flaws or printing errors were just from stone wear and not from printing mistakes. As mentioned above, the first dark blue Rayon I was arranged in groups of two. Stones A 1a and A 2 had the framed crosses, but any framed crosses found on A 3 are forgeries. Dr. Munk (1950) reported that he had seen many of those forgeries throughout the years of his research.

Rayon I, Light Blue The first printings of the Rayon I, light blue were of the B 2 and B 3 of the 2 x 2 stone arrangements (see Columbi et al, 1980). Munk (1944) stated that there were seven stones of the light blue Rayon I. He later reported a total of nine stones after having made more studies. Munk divided the first seven stones into three groups: two A stones (A 2 and A 3); three B stones (B 1, B2, and B3) which he said were printed quickly after the change to two colors from three. These B stones were arranged 2 x 2. And finally two stones of C (C 1 and C 2) were printed. The A 2 printings were usually sky blue with carmine red cross regions, see Figure 4_2, which is Type 33, A 2, U. Whereas, the A 3 stones were a greenish slate color with reddish brown. Munk (1944) also described in detail the flaws in the “B” series in the region of “Rayon.” These flaws can be mistaken for errors a forger might make, but they are definite flaws in the “B” stones. Before leaving the Rayon I, light blue, it is appropriate to mention the M stone which is discussed briefly and illustrated in Colombi, et al (1980). Some stamps from this dual stone are often crude and one might toss them aside as forgeries. The posthorn may be colorless and have many defects. I strongly suggest that if a light or pale blue Rayon I is found, and the features are strong, it probably is a C stone. However, if the entire stamp is unclear with “shaky” cutting lines, study it further to determine if it comes from the M stone. These are rare and Zumstein lists it as such. Only 60,000 were estimated to have been printed (Colombi et al, 1980). For those who find remnants of a frame on the cross or fully framed, one had better check to see whether it is a B stone. I have a “beautiful” forgery of a pair of Rayon I on cover that has a fully framed cross; however they are from a C 1 stone (Figure 4_3). Imagine the worth of that cover if it were a genuine Rayon I with framed crosses. As one can see from the photo that the forger did a wonderful and convincing addition. See Chapter “Other Forgers etc.”; concerning J. Schlesinger for more comments on this cover. Munk (1950) mentions a commonly occurring flaw in the Rayon I stone-B 2. These frequently seen flaws were only in the right two stones (R.O. and R.U.) of B 2. The top stone slanted downward at an angle so that it interfered with the top row of the bottom stone. Types 39 and 40 of the R.O. positions interfered with types of 7 and 8 of the R.U. position, which were located directly below. Munk believes that these stones were not transferred to the large stone as individual units of 40, but were “pinned” on one paper and then transferred to the large stone at the same time. More details are found in Appendix E located a few paragraphs just before he discusses the Rayon II stones. The reason it is mentioned here is because Dr. Munk reported that it was a frequent occurrence in the B 2 stone of the light blue Rayon I. Often flawed copies of the Federals can be mistaken for poorly done forgeries. In summation the light blue Rayon I was printed from the following groups of stones: (Colombi et al, 1980) A 2, A 3 and M in groups of 80 and the remainder which were B 1, B 2, B 3, U, C 1 and C 2 in groups of four panes of 160 images. Rayon II The A 1, A 2, and A 3 stamps of Rayon II were first released in September/October 1850. The A 1 stone was one pane above the other; the A 2 and A 3 were arranged in 2 x 2 fashion (Muller, 1967). Munk (1950) reported that Durheim used transfers that were “pinned down” for the A 3, but Durheim only considered it to be experimental. After a period of four months, the B stone stamps appeared in the latter part of February 1851. The second of the B stone (B 1) appeared in March 1851. The D and E issues appeared near the end of 1851 (Munk, 1950). Following footnote 5 in Appendix E, Dr. Munk discusses his experiences and studies with the R II framed cross stamps. By studying this section one may learn enough to avoid forgeries of these stamps such as those shown here (Figure 4_4). One should read as many research papers put forth by Dr. Munk in Appendix E beginning under “Part II. The Listing”. He gives his philosophy on collecting stamps but also suggests collectors should know something about “plating” or finding stamp flaws. He cites the thrill of plating of the British stamps 1d and 2d of 1840 to 1849 as one example. I fully agree with him that stamp collecting only becomes a distinct pleasure when one can delve into researching some facet of ones own collection. To collect past and new issues and then placing them in an album that is designed for your specific collection is not too much of a challenge. The latter statement is mine, but I know it is not shared by 95% of the stamp collectors. Munk (1950) describes the R I and R II stamps for their artistry, created by Durheim and his workers. He mentions “the tape-worm-like” lines, which I refer to as ground lines or garnish, might have been a deterrent to forgery. He cites his “Neue Wege” article on page 4 which concerns such lines in the first Bavarian stamp. These “lines” were photo lithographed by forgers such as Sperati and Fournier (or his predecessor Mercier). An example is the Rayon II forgery number 1 cited herein by the author where the ground lines of a forgery are a close duplication of the genuine type 30 (Figure RII_1). Of the two B stones, the B 1 is quite rare and Munk (1950) reports that the “card” or Karton paper is more frequent in the B stone issue and should be listed as a variety in the catalog. See Figures G_22 and G_23. In some catalogs it is listed. To sum up the stones of the Rayon II, there was only one stone that had one pane above the other, that was A 1; the remainder had a 2 x 2 configuration of 160 stamp images. In the final section of Appendix E by Munk (1950) he cites the rarity of the Rayon II from 10 (rare) to 0 (common): A 3 = 10; B 1 = 8; A 1 = 6; A 2 = 5; B = 3 and both D and E = 0. The Small Numeral, Rayon III This group will not be discussed as the other Federals since much of it appears in “Lithography” or the “History” chapters. The author used this issue to illustrate the possible technique of transferring from one stone to another via transfer paper. The Orts-Post stone (columns 2 and 3) were used to prepare the small “15 Rp” first of the small numeral issue; then the “RP” was effaced to make space for the “Cts” (Figure 4_5). An amount of 300,000 copies were made for the first issue and 100,000 copies for the second “Cts” issue. Both issues were released January 1, 1852. An important point to mention here is that the letters “Rayon III” in the inscription band are upright in the small numeral issue, whereas in the large numeral “15 Rp” issue, that “Rayon III” leans left at the left and right at the right. Many forgers did not distinguish this point between the two issues and they produced all inscription bands in one way for both issues. One other thing forgers also missed, was the extension of the lines into the escutcheon. All genuine Rayon III stamps have these lines invading the escutcheon. The individual panes were of 10 stamps (2 x 5) but that was repeated 16 times (4 x 4) to make a stone (and sheet) of 160 subjects (Westoby, 1903). Some panes were cut across and sold to give a configuration of types 9, 10, 9, for example (Figure 4_6). The Large Numeral, Rayon III The Orts-Post stone (columns 4 and 5) was used to make the large numeral Rayon III (Figure 4_5). The “Rp” was not removed but the 2-1/2 was changed to a large “15”. As mentioned previously the “Rayon III” is in a slanting position. It was issued in mid 1852. Panes of 10 (5 x 2) made up the sheet and it was repeated 18 times (6 x 3) to produce the sheet. It was printed in 1852, ’53 and ‘54 with a total of 3.27 million stamps. On May 11, 1857 about 276,454 were destroyed (Gees, 1970). When positioning this issue one expects to find, in general, very clear copies. The author came across one copy (Figure 4_7) that was thought to be a forgery. It was not, but it was only printed badly. All of the above Federal issues ceased to be valid for postage after October 1, 1854 (Mirabaud and Reuterskoild, 1899). The Characteristics of the Genuine Federal Issue Stamps Poste Locale The Poste Locale issue (Fig. 5_1) is different from all of the other issues in the Federal series. The characteristics which make it distinct from the other issues are: 1. There are three concentric circles that make up the posthorn ring; all other of the Federal species have 2 circles of rings. 2. The strings which emanate from the button at the top of that ring always form an acute angle, i.e., less than 90 degrees. Those strings are usually double except in the heavy inked printings when that character becomes less distinguishable. 3. The frame around the cross is a fine line of even thickness that may or may not be missing in a corner. 4. There is some shading within the borders of all flags except in the right flag of type 40. 5. The small rings that encircle the posthorn are different from the other issues. The Poste Locale species have no rings near the mouthpiece, (except type 39) but have 3 or 4 at the two center locations and 2 near the bell of the posthorn. All other Federal issues have a series of 2-3-3-2, respectively. 6. There is no period after Poste Locale, but there is one after RP. Frequently that period is so close to the cord circle that in many types it touches the cord at the right. 7. The letters in Poste Locale are about 1 mm high but never touch the inscription band. The “S” is usually taller than the “T”, i.e., in 36 of the 40 types. See Figures 5_2a and 5_2b for exceptions. 8. The cord or cable that is on the outside of the escutcheon is flecked with white, especially in the early issues which supposedly were printed from the original stone (Mirabaud and de Reuterskiold, 1899). These early prints are grey in color and are clean in every detail (Figure 4_1) compared to the latter issues which were printed from the lithographic transfer from the original stone. 9. At the bottom of both circles which house “2-1/2” and “RP”, are cord offshoots (tendrils) which appear at the lower inside of those cord circles (Figure 5_1). This occurs on 38 of the 40 types in at least one of the cord circles; only types 5 and 8 lack both of these inner tendrils. In all other Federal issues, including the Orts-Post, these inner cord tendrils are totally lacking! Orts-Post 1. The posthorn ring is made up of two concentric circles and that ring always rests upon the horn itself. 2. The strings within the posthorn ring form a 90 degree angle, or very nearly so. The strings within the posthorn ring are single strands. 3. Some shading lines always appear within the borders of the pendant flags. 4. There is a hyphen between “Orts” and “Post”. There is a period after “RP”, and on most types there is one after Orts-Post except for types 7, 11, 17, and 21. There are actually 2 periods after “Orts-Post” on type 9. 5. The frame cross is thick at the right, and in the lower margins of the cross (Hertsch, 1924). Occasionally a line will be missing, but there is an error in printing. 6. The rings that encircle the posthorn are in a series of 2-3-3-2; however there is an additional ring near the mouthpiece on types 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 37, 38, and 39. 7. The letters of “Orts-Post” are slightly taller than 1 mm in most cases (type 8 is an exception). The “S” in “Post” is usually taller than the “T” next to it. All these inscriptions were made individually and therefore vary amongst the 40 types. None of the letters, however, touch the inscription band. 8. The cord is usually flecked with white. On issues with heavy ink, the cord may be solid black; however this is highly unusual. The early printings are more likely to be flecked with white than those of later printings. 9. There always are background lines (garniture) at the inside positions of the flags, except for the right position of type 38 (see Figures 5_3a and 5_3b). Rayon I There are 2 printings of the Rayon I. The early one has black letters on dark blue background and the later printing has blue letters on white paper. Since the later issue of the blue on white paper (Scott 9 and 10 or Zumstein 17 I and 17 II) is easier to study and was produced from the same stones as the early issue of black letters on a blue background (Scott 5 and 7 or Zumstein 15 I and 15 II): these two issues will be discussed together for purposes of describing their art features. 1. The posthorn ring is made up of 2 concentric circles and a majority of the types have the bottom of those rings hidden or partially hidden behind the horn. Only a few rings rest directly on the horn as they do in the Orts-Post issue. 2. The strings within the posthorn ring form a 90 degree angle or nearly so. The exceptions are types 6, 7, 8, 22, 31 and 40 all of which have acute angles. 3. The strings within the ring are usually single strands but sometimes double (Figures 5_4c and 5_4d). 4. There are periods after “Rayon I” and “RP”. 5. The frame around the cross is a thin black line in the first issue and a thin blue line in the second issue. Note: there is a printing in the second issue that is dark blue and usually heavily inked. The lines of those crosses may be thick (Figures 5_4a, 5_4b, 5_4c, and 5_4d). 6. The rings that encircle the posthorn are in a series of 2-3-3-2. Occasionally these rings become unclear with heavy ink, especially in the early dark blue issue. 7. The top of the “R” in Rayon always leans left. The “one” always leans right. The space between “Rayon” and the Roman numeral I is about twice the spacing that exists between the letters within “Rayon”. 8. Usually there are some flecks of white in the cord or cable, but they are often more visible in the later blue issue on white than in the early issue of black on blue. Very seldom is that cord without flecks except when heavy inking occurs (Figures 5_4c and 5_4d). The cord of the black on blue background issue appears to have less flecking, but there is usually a place on the cord where it is visible. 9. Background lines (garniture) always appear at the inside positions of the flags. 10. There are thin paper varieties in the light blue issue which are translucent from the back side (Figure 5_4e). Most are of medium thickness on white wove paper. The issue of black on blue background is usually on hard paper that has a familiar sound when flicked between the fingers. Rayon II 1. The posthorn ring is made up of 2 rings and it may or may not rest on the horn. Sometimes it clearly does; sometimes the bottom is hidden behind the horn, and often there is a clear space between, i.e., there is no connection between the upper edge of the horn and the bottom of the ring. This issue is different from other issues in this region of art. In addition, the ring may be large, sometimes small, and even flat on the top. Examination of the 40 types is necessary to appreciate the variations compared to the preceding issues (Figures 5_5a and 5_5b). 2. The strings in the posthorn nearly form a 90 degree angle, but in some types (8, 19, 33, 34 and 38) the angle is less, and in some they are greater than 90 degrees (types 10, 11, 24, 32, 35, 36, 37 and 40). The strings within the posthorn ring are mostly single strands, but some are with one or two double strands. The double strand feature may be masked by excessive ink. Strings are not a uniform art characteristic for the identification of issue. 3. There is never any shading within the borders of the flags as there is in the flags of all the other Federal issues. This is unique! 4. Periods always appear after “Rayon II” and “RP”. Note: Although Figures 5_5a, and 5_5b do not show a period after “Rayon II” in types 5, 25 and 26 (Figure 5_5c), this was an error produced in the plate of Mirabaud and de Reuterskiold (1899). This error was transferred to subsequent works (Hertsch, 1924) which are shown in Figures 5_5a and 5_5b. True copies of the types 5, 25, and 26 have periods after Rayon II, see Figure RII_5c. This error was also transferred to a later publication (Muller, 1967) although that author included photos of actual stamps where periods did appear (Kofranek, 1994a). 5. The frame around the cross is thin and black (see Figure 2_3 for part framing). This feature is so rare that it is seldom seen. The framed cross is considered by some to be an essay that was never issued. It is speculated that some of these essays slipped through and were used in the post. 6. The rings that encircle the posthorn are in a series of 2-3-3-2. Occasionally these become unclear with heavy ink. 7. The letters of Rayon II are slightly taller than 1 mm but never touch the inscription band. The top of the “R” always leans left. The Roman numeral two always leans right. The space between “Rayon” and the two is about twice the spacing between the letters in “Rayon”. 8. There usually are some flecks of yellow showing through the cord or cable. Very seldom is the flecking absent, and in the case of heavy inking the contours on the inner escutcheon and the area below the posthorn would also become solid black. 9. Background lines generally appear on the inside positions of the flags although it may be as little as a single line. There are three exceptions at the left of the right flag; they are types 24, 25, and 40. 10. There are thin and thick paper varieties in this issue, (Figure G_22 and G_23) but most are medium, white woven paper. Rayon III - Small Numeral This issue was made from columns 2 and 3 of the Orts-Post stone, therefore the artwork should be similar in all respects except for the inscription band, “Rayon III”, the small numeral “15” in the lower left circle, and the shield which was filled with vertical lines around a framed cross. The “Rp” was unchanged and remained as it was in the Orts-Post issue for the types in columns 2 and 3. Later the “Rp” was changed to “Cts,” but that was all that was changed for the “Cts” issue. 1. The posthorn ring is made up of 2 concentric rings and it rests upon the horn itself (same as Orts-Post). 2. Single strings within the posthorn ring form a 90 degree angle or nearly so (same as Orts-Post). Those strings within the posthorn ring are single strands (same as Orts-Post). 3. There is a period after “Rp” as in Orts-Post, but not always after “Rayon” III, see Figure 5_6 for the exceptions. 4. There always are some shading lines within the borders of the flags (same as Orts-Post). 5. The cross is framed heavily at the right and in the lower portion as in the framing of Orts-Post. There are 17-18 parallel vertical lines in the shield. In every type, left and right lines cut into the inner part of the escutcheon. In a majority of cases, some lines also cut into the top part of the escutcheon as well. 6. The rings that encircle the posthorn are in a series of 2-3-3-2 (same as Orts-Post). In addition, types 7, 8 and 9 have the extra ring near the mouthpiece as do types 26, 27 and 34 in the Orts-Post issue. 7. The letters of “Rayon III” are slightly taller than 1 mm; however, the letters do not touch the inscription band. The Roman numeral “III” is nearly upright. 8. The cord is usually flecked with white unless the printing is heavily inked. 9. The “Cts” in the centime issue varies in the 10 types. All have a period after “Cts” except type 4. Type 9 has 2 small periods. The period touches the cord in type 10, and almost touches in type 1. Most of the “C’s” are 2 mm high except types 2, 3 and 5 which are slightly taller than 2 mm. None of the “C’s” touch the cord. All types have a curved tail on the “t” except type 1. See Figure 5_7 for these variations. 10. There always are background lines (garniture) at the inside positions of the flags (same as Orts-Post). It may be obvious to the reader that the “Rp” and the “Cts” of the small 15 issues are the same except for those letters in the right cord circle.

Rayon III - Large Numeral This issue was produced from columns 4 and 5 of the Orts-Post stone. Therefore the artwork of these types are similar in all respects except for the inscription “Rayon III”; the large numeral “15” in the lower left circle; and shield which was filled in with vertical parallel lines around a framed cross. The “Rp” was unchanged and remained as it was on the Orts-Post stone (Figure 5_8). 1. The posthorn ring is made up of 2 concentric rings and it rests upon the horn itself (same as Orts-Post). 2. Single strings within the posthorn ring form a 90 degree angle or very nearly so (same as Orts-Post). 3. There always are shading lines within the borders of the flags (same as Orts-Post). 4. There is a period after “Rp” as the Orts-Post stone, but only 5 of the ten types have a period after Rayon III (1, 2, 3, 7 and 9). 5. The cross frame is heavy at the right and lower parts and is framed as Orts-Post. There are either 17 or 18 vertical lines. The left line always cuts into the inner escutcheon. ” are slightly taller than 1 mm. In a majority of cases the right leg of the “N” touches the inscription band. Other letters approach the inscription band at both the top and bottom. The Roman numeral III leans slightly to the right and the “R” in Rayon leans to the left. This is different than the previous issue with the small numeral. 6. The cord is flecked with white especially in the bottom left cord circle with the “15”. 7. Background lines always appear at the inside positions of the flats (same as Orts-Post). 8. There are thin paper varieties (Figure 5_9) but most were printed on medium woven paper. Selected Forgeries of the Federal Issue Stamps Before embarking on the task of identifying Federal Issue forgeries, please be informed that forgers were about to imitate the government issues of all countries. These forgeries still are with us a century and a half later. There are many forgeries of the Swiss Federal Issue which were produced and initially sold in Europe. Some forgeries are better than others and these will be discussed in detail when describing the issues as Durheim’s Federal Issues appeared beginning in 1850. Forgeries of the Federal Administration Issue began as early as the 1860’s with the Spiro brothers in Hamburg, Germany. Those forgeries were crude, but collectors really had nothing to which to compare them unless they saw the genuine stamp in Switzerland or those that were posted to their own country. The Spiro brothers printed many items such as beer labels to Sunday school cards (Tyler, 1991). It was no great effort to change the presses to printing forgeries of many stamps. Although the Swiss Federals were crude, issues of other countries were quite good and deceived many collectors. These forgeries were advertised in current philatelic journals but soon their ads were refused. The Spiro brothers then began the journal Der Deutsche Briefmarken Sammler in 1864. They were free to publicize their wares with impunity. Their lithographic forgeries were produced in sheets of 25 (Figure 6_1) usually with cancellations as illustrated. All of the Federal Issues were printed as illustrated and then cut into singles or multiples as the customer desired. Evidently the Spiro brothers flooded the philatelic market with their forgeries of all countries, which prompted several publications on the subject of forgeries and aimed mostly at the Spiro’s. In 1862 J.B. Moens of Brussels Belgium started his De la Falsification des timbres - poste which was later translated into English by E. Doble (1862). Others followed from Great Britain (Lewes and Pemberton, 1803, Stourton, 1865, and Dalston, 1865). These later forgery publications cited were of the various European forged stamps. This illustrates that the business of philatelic forgery for profit expanded at a very early date. When one claims a collection was found in the attic of grandfather’s estate, it assures no one that was a collection free of what were coined as “Album Weeds” (Earee, 1906). In his book Stourton (1865) cites two forgeries each for the Orts-Post and Poste Locale issues. At the time (1865) these issues, except perhaps the non-bordered cross of Poste Locale, were not too highly priced in catalogs, but they still were targets for forgery. Once the forger made a model for the two issues above, those also sufficed as models for Rayon I, II and III forgeries by merely changing values, colors, and inscription band lettering. This actually will come out in detail when discussing the individual issues. In 1871 three British dealers, W. Dudley Atlee, Edward L. Pemberton and Strafford Smith embarked on a task to publish the Spud Papers which exposed many of the forgeries by including illustrations of those reaching the market. These papers continued for a decade. The three dealers were joined by Reverend R. B. Earee who spent much of his private life combating stamp forgeries. Those articles over a 10-year period covered 400 current forgeries, many of which were Spiro’s. Unfortunately these authors only covered the 4 and 6 rappen of Zurich. The backgrounds of these authors are aptly reviewed by Lowell Ragatz in his introduction of the reprint version of the Spud Papers. They are worth reading to get an appreciation of these dedicated persons to reveal the forgeries of their era. Reverend R.B. Earee continued writing about forgeries long after the Spud Papers ceased in 1881. He published Album Weeds (1906) in which volume VII goes into detail on many forgeries of the Swiss Cantonals and the Federal Issues of his day. He described the genuine issues and the counterfeits available to him. The remainder of this chapter are my findings of forgeries except for Sperati’s imitations. Those Sperati descriptions appear in Appendix A. Poste Locale Figure PL_1. This forgery is similar in make-up to my Orts-Post forgery number 1 (Figure OP_1). This one with framed cross is patterned after type 15. 1. Scott 2; Zumstein No. 14I. A very realistic forgery of Type 15 except it has the fake rare bird described by Hunziker (1993). While in the Royal Philatelic Society, London (RPSL) expertizing room, I saw this forgery in their collection which I confused with Orts-Post forgery Number 1. I asked the RPSL to photograph it for me. I typed the forgery to Type 15, but I never had time that day to describe its significant deviation from the true Type 15. After having received the photo, I set it aside and never thought about it. At this point in time, I cannot see well enough to describe it and I will hope that someone with good eyes will finish the task some day for the record.

Figure PL_2. This is a forgery that would make an expert look twice. It has many of the characteristics of the originals, but the paper is glossy and if cut closely, it would not show cutting lines that do not cross as they should.

2. Scott No. 2; Zumstein No. 14 I. A Fournier forgery of Poste Locale that was fashioned after type 28 (Figure PL_2). It mimics the original very closely. Could this be one that was produced by Mercier, perhaps one of his award winners, and latter offered by Fournier? This copy is an improvement on the proof in black (Figure PL_2a). Almost everything is the same as the original type 28, except that the forgery printing is much lighter. The paper of the forgery is of medium thickness, hard and has a chalky finish. When the paper is flicked between the fingers, it snaps. The deviations are relatively difficult to detect.

SIGNIGICANT DEVIATIONS: The deviations are subtle and nothing like any other issues except for Sperati’s forgeries. a. The posthorn ring is partially three concentric rings, but near the top those circles become a series of dots (see Figure 5_2b). b. The right cord loop makes a slight tilt upward, whereas in type 28 the end of the loop is straight out. c. The framed cross is 4.5 mm across and the true type 28 has a cross the width of which is 4.25 mm. d. The “o” in “Locale” is slightly less than 1 mm tall and the originals are about 1 mm high. e. The cutting lines do not cross as these forgeries were produced as single copies (Fig. PL_2b). These were released as limited numbers from collections by the Philatelic Union of Geneva. f. The ground lines appear to be similar to type 28 but close inspection reveals very slight differences in a few places. This forgery also appears as Orts-Post in Ragatz (1970) on page 134, the second from the right in the first row of “Poste Federales”. Although “Orts-Post” appears in the inscription band, all other art features are of the Poste Locale issue. This is the only place the author has seen this forgery. Figure PL_3. A rarity attributed to Fournier, and one that is well done. It might be difficult to detect without references. This copy is from a Fournier collection, and was loaned to the author by the late Dr. Felix Ganz. The “Faux” was placed on it by The Philatelic Union of Geneva. 3a. Scott No. 2; Zumstein 14 I, (Figure PL_3a). This is an excellent forgery and was probably made by Louis-Henri Mercier also known as Henri Goegg. This man produced forgeries in the late nineteenth century (Tyler, 1976). Mercier was awarded prizes for his forgeries before philatelic juries stopped awarding diplomas and gold medals for forgeries. Mr. Mercier sold his forged stamps to Fournier who later sold and distributed them all over the world. Among Mercier’s forgeries were five Swiss Rayons (Tyler, 1976). It seems reasonable to think that this and Figure PL_2b are undoubtedly Mercier’s if awards were given for forgeries. These are excellent! This forgery has similar ground lines to type 7. It has many attributes that make it believable once it has been cut from its proof-like paper and canceled as in Figure PL_3a. The cord is flecked with white; the shading under the inscription band is horizontal as it should be; there are inner tendrils in the lower circles; and one must agree with the ground lines as they are in type 7. There were not many deviations. This forgery has been partially described by Serrane (1926).

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. There are only two concentric rings in the posthorn ring instead of three. There are, however, hints of the third circle on the lower right and left. B. The lower left cord circle touches the inner frame lines. The original comes close but does not touch. C. The lower left cord loop is broken at the bottom; it is not in the original of type 7. As noted above the deviations are slight and are hardly significant. Perhaps the paper would give this forgery away since it is a bit thicker and softer than usual. There is a glaze on the face of the stamp, but that is difficult to see when it is canceled as in Figure PL_3a. Figure PL_3a. This forgery is attributed to Fournier. Details of this forgery are the same as Figure PL3 except for the border around the cross which is absent here. 3. Scott No. 2; Zumstein No. 14 I. The reader is referred to Figure PL_4 and its description under Scott No. 4; Zumstein No. 14 II above. The frame around the cross is realistic. Figure PL_4. This forgery is similar to the Orts-Post illustrated in Figure OP_4 except that the name in the inscription band has been changed to Poste Locale. Courtesy of the late R.F. Bulstrode. 4. Scott No. 2; Zumstein No. 14 I. This forgery like the Orts-Post version (Figure OP_4) is printed on medium hard paper which makes one think it is authentic. The background lines are excellent; the cord is flecked with white and the color in the shield is believable. The major deviations are discussed under Orts-Post, but there are additional characteristics pertinent to Poste Locale. Below are these additional deviations. SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The escutcheon is broken at the bottom as in Orts-Post 4. One can pick this out at once as being a forgery. None of the genuine 40 types has this fault. B. The posthorn ring has 2 concentric rings instead of 3 which is normal for Poste Locale. C. The strings within the ring are single strands rather than being double; however, the angle of the strings is acute as it should be in Poste Locale. C. There are no tendrils within the lower circles as there should be. D. The border of the cross has shading, but it should be made up of thin single lines for Poste Locale. E. The rings around the posthorn are in a series of 2-3-3-2 instead of the series that is typical for Poste Locale. F. The letter “e” in “Locale” is too close to the inscription band; there is ample space in the cases of any of the originals. Just for the record, it appears as thought Orts-Post was made first and then Orts-Post was effaced and Poste Locale was substituted. Note there are no tendrils. Figure PL_5. This forgery looks good at a quick glance, but the cutting lines do not cross as they should. The color in the shield is good. Courtesy of the late R.D. Keller.

5. Scott No. 2; Zumstein No. 14 I. This forgery may look authentic and may be deceiving to some, especially when the frame around the cross is lacking (Figure PL_5a). There are many deviations which occur other than that it was printed on medium hard to fibrous paper. The red ink of the cancellation soaked through the fibers and is visible on the back side. Another copy with a black cancel (PP) did not soak through. The width of the framed cross is reasonable correct. This information is based on 5 copies.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: One does not have to study the forgery beyond the posthorn area to find other significant faults. A. The posthorn is shifted too far left above the trefoil. This forgery has a third set of rings above the trefoil and in all of the originals the second, but the third set of rings are about equidistant from the trefoil. B. The posthorn ring is made up of 2 concentric rings instead of 3. C. The set of rings is 3-3-3-3 instead of 2 near the bell and none at the mouthpiece. The exception is type 39 (see Figure 5_2a). D. The strings are single strands instead of the usual double strands. E. The nail head holding the strings is a point instead of a large head. F. There are no tendrils (cord offshoots) within the circles at the bottom as there should be. Inner tendrils occur in 38 of the 40 types of Poste Locale. G. The escutcheon is solid black instead of being made up of the usual contoured lines. H. The shading under the inscription band is vertical instead of being horizontal. I. The letters in “Poste Locale” are about 1.5 mm tall and the genuine ones are about 1 mm. J. The background lines are about the correct density, but they seem to be connected in one continuous line. This is best observed at the lower part of the forgery.

Figure PL_5a. This forgery is almost identical to Figure PL_5 except there is no framing around the cross. Of course, this would be very rare if it were authentic.

5a. Scott No. 4; Zumstein No. 14 II, Figure PL_5a. The cross is about 4.5 mm wide which is excessive. The paper is white and semi hard. This rarity is not often seen. Note that the cancellation is similar to the one shown in Figure PL_5, except for red color.

Figure PL_6. A forgery with many faults. The color is good, but the cutting lines do not cross.

6. Scott No. 2; Zumstein No. 14 I. This forgery has some attributes that give it the appearance of an authentic stamp. The letters in the inscription band are about normal in relation to the size of the band. The red coloration is well contained except at the trefoil unless shifted (Figure PL_6a). The groundline density appears plausible but closer examination shows that those lines are continuous (Figure PL_6). The paper of one copy examined was soft and very white and another was off-white and hard carton. The rings are 0-3-3-2 when not inked heavily.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The flange of the posthorn is distorted. Usually it is large and open and the bell is nearly parallel to the last set of horn rings. B. The large “2” on the left almost touches the cord. The “2’s” in the originals are generally farther from the cord except in a few cases. C. The posthorn ring is thin and made up of 2 rings instead of 3. D. The strings although double, actually drop down too abruptly and form a very acute angle. E. The right flag tips touch the cord loop. None of the original types do. F. The cord is solid black instead of being flecked with white. The shading under the inscription band is also solid black. G. There are no tendrils within the circles below. H. Finally, a subtle but serious error is the framing of the cross. The cross should be a single line and this one is shaded as in the Orts-Post species.

Figure PL_7. A forgery that resembles in many ways the Orts-Post in Figure OP_9. Notice the posthorn, the flags, and the ground lines.

7. Scott No. 4; Zumstein No. 14 II (Figure PL_7). A forgery which looks reasonable to the untrained eye, but it has many faults. The paper is medium hard. This is attributed to Fournier.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The posthorn, though not clear in this copy, has three sets of rings to the right of center. B. There are no tendrils within the circles at the bottom as there should be. C. The posthorn ring is made up of 2 concentric rings instead of 3. D. The escutcheon frame is totally black instead of being contoured. E. There is no shading in the flags.

Figure PL_8. This forgery is identical in every way to Figure OP_8 except for the words Poste Locale substituted for Orts-Post.

8. Scott No. 4; Zumstein No. 14 II (Figure PL_8). This is a forgery which may not deceive many collectors. The red color is good and there is contouring on the escutcheon frame. The deviations pertinent to the Poste Locale issue are described.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The rings around the posthorn are 2-2-2-2. B. There are only 2 concentric rings in the posthorn ring instead of 3. C. There are no tendrils within the circles at the bottom as there should be. D. There is no shading in the flags. E. The cord is totally black instead of being flecked with white.

Figure PL_9. This shows a crude copy of the Poste Locale on soft thick, yellowish paper, It is similar to the copy shown in Figure OP_9 of Orts-Post.

9. Scott No. 4; Zumstein No. 14 II (Figure PL_9). This copy has inner tendrils in the lower circles which are only present on the Poste Locale issues. The large “2” of this copy is not damaged and the mouthpiece on the horn is present. The inscription band is the same size, only the letters have been reduced. These four features were different in the Orts-Post version shown in the Figure OP_9. All other features described in Orts-Post number are the same.

10. Scott No. 2, Zumstein No. 14 I. One is referred to Figure OP_10 to view this Spiro forgery alongside the Orts-Post variety. The deviations pertinent to the Poste Locale are described.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The posthorn has 2 concentric rings instead of 3. B. There are no tendrils within the circles at the bottom as there should be. C. The rings around the posthorn are in a series of 2-2-2-2.

After having made my second trip to the Royal Philatelic Society of London (RPSL) I made a discovery in their collection of forgeries that I had not seen there during my first visit. They made a transparency for me. It is shown here as Figure PL_11, and it is very similar to my OP_3 under Orts-Post. At this late date with my eyes failing, I cannot pick out great differences between the two except the letters in the Poste Local version were made smaller to accommodate the space in the inscription band. What I can see is the large posthorn ring - too fat. Secondly, there are no tendrils in the circles below. I added this forgery after I had written my text years ago. Although it is a good one, I place it at the end just so that it can be seen by all. Both the Poste Locale and Orts-Post versions of the forgery are rare. I have only seen one of each. Thanks to the RPSL for the Poste Locale photograph.

ORTS-POST Figure OP_1. This forgery is one of the best ones which has not been attributed to Sperati. There are few errors that are minor in the lithography itself. One major error is the red coloring; it is too large for the escutcheon (right) and is missing in the upper left curve. The cancellation is one of the fake rare bird. Courtesy of the late Frank Bulstrode.

1. Scott No. 1; Zumstein No. 13 I (Figure OP_1). This forgery would make experts think twice, except they would be suspicious to see the rare bird cancellation (Hunziker 1993), and when they would turn the stamp over they would see the color bleeding through the paper! The forgery is modeled after type 18. It probably was done by photolithography and therefore has few deviations other than the color transfer. There are cutting lines, but it is not possible to determine if they cross.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The red coloration bleeds through the paper which never occurs with true copies. The red coloration is too large for the escutcheon. Note how it shifts to the right even though it fits properly at the left. The red color covers the 3 horizontal sections of the cross but ends properly at the bottom horizontal. In addition the color is missing in the upper left corner curve. B. The cross is made up of thick single lines with no appreciable shading to the right. The size is about correct. C. A small section of the rope of cord is missing at about “7 o’clock” in the lower right circle. D. The outer escutcheon line is broken at the very bottom where it should be rounded. E. The inner line on the escutcheon is broken at the left where the two sections of the escutcheon meet. There is a jagged inner line that penetrates left at that point (Serrane, 1926). F. The inner frame line (point 3 in Figure OP_1) is broken at the upper left corner as it should be (based on 3 sources). The inner frame line here is broken in several other places and it should not be. The places are: the upper right of the horizontal line; the left vertical about 3/5th of the way up; and the lower horizontal near the lower left corner. As one becomes aware of the sham, the only serious error is the coloration.

Figure OP_2. These forgeries are very believable when canceled and the cutting lines have been cut close as they have been here, so that it is hard to determine if those cutting lines do indeed cross as they should.

2. Scott No. 1, 3; Zumstein No. 13 I, 13II (Figure OP_2). These forgeries are attributed to Fournier as they appear in the collection offered by the Philatelic Union of Geneva in 1928. It is possible that it was really produced by Louis Henri Mercier who won several awards for his forgeries in the late nineteenth century. He then sold his supply to Fournier who later sold them as his own. If this is true, Mercier incorporated all the characteristics that make this forgery plausible. He fashioned it after type 14.

The posthorn is about the same shape as the original; the strings within the correct posthorn ring form a right angle; and the rings around the horn are 2-3-3-2. The letters in the band are about the correct size, and the “s” in “Post” is slightly larger than the “t” next to it. The cord has white flecking in it in many places. There are offshoots at the bottom in the correct places. The outside line of the escutcheon is a reasonable distance from the cord to the bottom. The shading under the inscription band is as it should be. The paper is of medium thickness, semi hard but has a slight glossiness. This last point gives the forgery away.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The right flag is deeply cut and none of the originals have such a deep cut, especially type 14 after which it was copied. B. The bordered cross is 4.75 mm across and most of the originals are 4.25 mm. The cross is shaded within reason. C. The cutting lines do not cross as is obvious from Figures OP_2a and PL_2b. This copy is from a collection released by the Philatelic Union of Geneva in 1928 and is marked “faux”, as they did before releasing the albums. D. The coloring in the shield always seems to be too large for the escutcheon borders. This is more evident with the bordered cross variety (Figure OP_2a). E. Although the background lines approach type 14 and have the proper density, very close scrutiny shows that there are minute variations.

Figure OP_3. A convincing forgery at first glance. The letters in the inscription band seem to crowd the area and the cutting lines do not seem to cross.

3. Scott No. 1: Zumstein No. 13 I (Figure OP_3). An excellent forgery which has hard paper; it snaps when flicked (based on one copy). The basic characteristics are equivalent to the genuine in many instances. The rope cords are flecked with white; the shading under the inscription band is horizontal; and the cross is properly shaded within a believable colored shield. This forgery is courtesy of Earl Apfelbaum, Philadelphia, PA.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The posthorn ring is larger in diameter than any of the originals. It rests high on the horn; genuine types have thin posthorn rings and are somewhat hidden behind the horn. This feature caused the author to doubt this forgery. B. There is no period after “Rp”; there should be. Although there is no period after “Orts-Post”, this feature occurs in 10% of the original types. C. There are no background lines to the right of the left flag, and there are always some lines at that location. Although there are no ground lines to the left of the right flag, however this also occurs in type 38 of the original. D. The right flag tails touch the cord circle. Only 2 other types have the left tail touch the cord loop. E. The angle of the strings is acute rather than a right angle or nearly so. F. The inscription band, in the center, is about 2 mm high instead of being less than that. The letters are also taller than the originals, i.e., the “P” is about 1 mm tall in the originals and about 1.2 mm tall in this forgery. The letters also seem to crowd the inscription band. G. The taper of the posthorn near the mouthpiece is slender in the originals but thick in this forgery. However, the series or rings is 2-3-3-2 as it should be. H. The cutting lines do not cross; see upper right of Figure OP_3.

4. Scott No. 1; Zumstein No. 13 I (Figure OP_4). This is one of the best forgeries based on the thin hard, white paper and the coloring in the shield which is masterfully contained within the escutcheon as are the originals. The background lines are excellent even though they cannot be matched to any of the forty types. There were 6 copies to study and 3 were toned yellow with age. There is evidence of flecking in the left cord and good horizontal shading under the inscription band which is rare in most forgeries.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. There are 5 distinct parts of the escutcheon, not counting the trefoil at top. The bottom section should be unbroken and in the shape of a fancy “V”. This forgery is broken just at the top right of the bottom of the “V”. No original has this fault! B. The strings within the posthorn ring form an acute angle; the strings of the originals are at right angles or nearly so. C. The left arabesque touches the left inner frame. The closest left arabesque in the originals (Type 8) is about 0.3 mm distant. D. The lower left circle touches the inner frame; no original has this feature. E. The letters in the inscription band are small compared to the originals which have lettering that is about 1 mm tall. The lettering in the forgery is very well done, however. F. The left tail of the left flag hangs almost vertically and even curves slightly inward; all of the original left flags tend to drift to the left. G. The diameter of the posthorn between the two right series of circling bands is large, therefore there is less taper in the horn than in the originals. H. The upper right loop of the cord is smaller than the upper left one. Both are circular rather than being elliptical as the originals. I. No comments can be made concerning the cutting lines as all the available copies were cut too closely. Note: The author has a copy without a hyphen between “Orts” and “Post”. All other characteristics are the same as the figure above. This species of forgery is still being offered U.S. dealers as genuine. They seldom believe me when I point out the errors to them.

Figure OP_5. A good forgery but the outer border of the escutcheon almost touches the cord in 4 places at the bottom.

5. Scott No. 3; Zumstein No. 13 II (Figure OP_5). This forgery is good but not excellent. The paper is of medium thickness and soft. The density of the background lines approaches that of the originals, but those lines are not like any of the 40 types. These lines are continuous and should not be. The shield is dark red but invades the inner border of the escutcheon.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The strings within the posthorn ring form an acute angle. The nail that holds that string is a point instead of being a nail head. B. The outer border of the escutcheon at the bottom almost touches and cord in 4 places; only types 16 and 24 come that close and only at one point each; i.e. on the right. C. The series of rings around the horn is 3-3-3-3 instead of 2-3-3-2 as in the originals. D. The tails of the left flag touch the left loop of the cord; none of the originals do. E. The shading under the inscription band is vertical instead of being drawn horizontally. F. The right arabesque and the upper part of the cord are in a direct line with the vertical of the “t”. In the originals the “t” is always to the right of these two reference points. G. The horizontal measurement of the cross of 2 copies is 5 mm instead of about 4.25 mm in the originals. Another forged copy measured 4.5 mm. H. The inscription band is about 2 mm tall instead of being less than 2 mm tall in the originals. The letters are also slightly larger than the originals. I. There are cutting lines, but it is difficult to see whether they cut across the corners as they should.

Figure OP_6. Many deviations set this forgery apart from the originals, but the soft tinted paper, which cannot been seen, is the major key.

6. Scott No. 3; Zumstein No. 13 II (Figure OP_6). This forgery is good, but it is printed on soft tinted paper. The background lines are less sparse than in the originals. The shield is about the correct color, and it is well contained within the escutcheon borders, as in the originals. The cross is about the correct size (4.25 mm).

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The strings in the posthorn ring form an acute angle. B. The outer bottom of the escutcheon almost touches the cord in 3 places, but the upper left location is distant (about 0.5 mm) from the cord as it is in the originals. C. The series of rings around the posthorn is 3-3-3-3 instead of 2-3-3-2 as in the originals. D. There is no flange on the bell of the posthorn. E. The two concentric rings of the horn ring are far apart and vertically elliptical instead of narrow and round. In addition the nail holding the string is a point instead of being about 2 to 3 times larger. F. The shading lines under the inscription band are vertical instead of being horizontal. G. The left tail of the flag touches the cord loop. H. The outer border of the escutcheon just below the posthorn is relatively flat and totally black. The originals have graceful curves that are made up of several contour lines. Occasionally, the contour lines in the originals run together depending on the quantity of printing ink that was used. I. The right arabesque and the upper part of the cord are in line with the vertical of the “t” (see 5 F above). J. There are no cutting lines between copies (Figure OP_6a). K. There is no period after “Orts-Post”, but this occurs 10% of the time in the true types.

Note: This forgery is very much like 5 above except that 5 is an improvement over 6. Note how many deviations are the same. The improvements of 5 over 6 are as follows: 1. The posthorn ring was made slimmer. 2. The flange of the horn was greatly improved. 3. The cutting lines were added. 5. The inscription band on the right was made rounder than shown in Figure OP_6. Figure OP_7. The black printing of this forgery is not good. There are no cutting lines between the pair of stamps and there is no shading in the flags.

7. Scott No. 1; Zumstein No. 13 I. The black printing on this forgery (Figure OP_7) is not as refined as previously described forgeries. The background lines are sparse and crude; however the red shield is a good color and is well contained within the escutcheon. This forgery is attributed to Fournier. It has “FAC-SIMILE” printed diagonally on the backside. This was typical of the edict of L’Union Philatelique de Geneve, 1928 (Ragatz, 1970).

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The series of rings around the posthorn is 2-2-2-2; equally significant, 3 sets of those rings are to the right of the horn ring and they should not be. B. The right flag almost touches the inner frame line; no other original has a flag that close. C. There is no shading in the flags as there should be. D. The upper cord loops are large, and the left one just touches and inner border; it should not. E. The shading lines under the inscription band is vertical instead of being horizontal. F. The cross border is a single thick line rather than being heavily shaded in the lower right positions. G. There is no period after “Orts-Post”, but this also occurs in 10% of the originals. H. There are no cutting lines.

Figure OP_8. A crude forgery which causes one to be suspicious immediately. Courtesy of the late B.F. Bulstrode.

8. Scott No. 3; Zumstein No. 13 II (Figure OP_8). The intense blackness of the lines is unusual for this issue, but the red is a good color.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The series of lines around the posthorn is 2-2-2-2. B. The bottom of the posthorn ring rests below the horn. This is okay for Rayon II but not for Orts-Post. C. There is no shading in the flags which is also okay for Rayon II but not for Orts-Post. D. The cord lines are solid black instead of having some flecking of white showing. E. The background lines are too sparse.

Figure OP_9. A crude forgery of Orts-Post which hardly would deceive anyone.

9. Scott No. 3: Zumstein 13 II (Figure OP_9). This crude forgery is on soft paper. Although the red color within the escutcheon is good and well contained, other features are not good. A photo of it appears on page 134 in Ragatz (1970). It hardly seems possible that this forgery could be one of Fournier’s. See Appendix D for a cover with this forgery.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The posthorn is crude and the series of rings around it appear to be 1-1-1-1 instead of 2-3-3-2. B. The density of the ground lines are about twice as great as normal, they interfere with (obliterate) the arabesques and the loops of the cord. C. The posthorn ring appears to be singular rather than having 2 concentric rings. D. There should be no inner tendrils within the lower circles; this is okay for Post Locale but not for Orts-Post. E. The mouthpiece on the horn is missing. F. The base of the large 2 is incomplete and short. G. No cutting lines even appear on the copy shown in Ragatz (1970).

Figure OP_10. A crude Spiro forgery of both Orts-Post and Poste Locale. The only real difference between these two is that the inscription band has been enlarged to accommodate the lettering “Poste Locale”. Note that the cancellations are similar to those shown in Figure 9_2.

10. Scott No. 1; Zumstein No. 13 I. This Spiro forgery (Figure OP_10) was the crudest one examined. The paper varies from newspaper quality to one of high rag content. The forger made no attempt to keep the red within the escutcheon; it “overflows” in many places.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The density of the background lines is about twice as great as normal and those lines partially obliterate the arabesques and the upper cord loops. B. The red shield is straight across the top instead of following the border of the escutcheon; it covers the trefoil. C. The series of rings is 2-2-2-2 instead of 2-3-3-2. D. The posthorn is not deeply curved as in the originals. E. The cross is about 3.5 mm wide instead of about 4.25 mm. F. There are no cutting lines between stamps.

Note: The way to quickly identify Spiro Federal forgeries is to observe the background lines just above the inscription and these are illustrated in Figure OP_11. Those lines to the right of center look like a snowman (left) and two rabbits (right). The Spiro’s were all printed in sheets of 25 and were precancelled with a rubber stamp of the common cancellations as shown in Figure 9_2.

Rayon I Figure RI_1. This forgery is very believable because of the color and the density of the background lines. It looks as though there are cutting lines on the bottom and the right, but it is impossible to discern if they cross. Another version of this forgery in figure RI_1a is less believable because it is very fine and does not hide the faults as this one does.

1. Scott No. 10: Zumstein No. 17 II (Figure RI_1). Everything about this forgery is excellent, and deviations were difficult to find. The paper is hard and was based on this copy only.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The “o” and the “n” in Rayon are too close and almost touch at the base. No original approaches this closeness. B. The Roman numeral I is about 0.5 mm from the “n” and in the originals 1 mm is the minimum distance. C. The posthorn ring is more elliptical vertically than any of the originals. D. The strings in the posthorn ring are more acute than in any of the originals. E. Although there are good contour lines in the escutcheon, the cord is solid and has no flecking of white as it should have. F. The background lines look excellent but none fit any of the 40 types.

Note: In studying this forgery, it was found that it most closely mimics type 8, not in background lines, but in features within the inscription band and the posthorn ring. Note how far right the “R” in Rayon is compared to all the true types.

Figure RI_1a is a very light version of this forgery and because the features are so fine, the forgery is more readily detected. Compare these two figures with type 8 as it supposedly is to mimic. This one is illustrated in Ragatz (1970), therefore should be attributed to Fournier. The paper of three copies is soft and white. The cutting lines do not cross. I want to refer to this version as 1a, since it will be referred to in Appendix B (Figure RI_1a). In addition to these 2 versions there is a third version that escaped the forger’s lair. It has a Roman numeral II instead of a Roman numeral I (Figure RI_1b). The forger seemed to have trouble in the inscription band.

Upon searching further, a fourth version appeared out of a Fournier collection (Figure RI_1c). It appears less believable than the other versions, but the paper is hard and thin. The background lines of versions 1b and 1c are similar but different from versions 1 and 1a. Figure RI_1d is a block of four of RI_1c (courtesy of the Bern Philatelic Museum). Cutting lines do not cross.

Figure RI_2. An excellent forgery of Rayon I. Note how the cutting lines cross at the upper right.

2. Scott No. 10: Zumstein No. 17 II. This is an excellent forgery since details are similar to the originals. The cross is 4 mm across and the posthorn has a series of rings 2-3-3-2, which is normal. The details and shading of all parts are excellent. The cord has flecks of white as do the originals. The cutting lines cross as they should. The contours in the escutcheon are believable. The shield color is good and is well contained within the escutcheon. There are not too many deviations in this forgery, therefore it rates a high evaluation except for the soft porous paper found in 4 copies; 1 copy was found with hard paper. This forgery is attributed to Fournier but probably via Mercier.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The left flag is about 2 mm across at its broadest point; no original flag is greater than about 1.5 mm. B. The series of rings around the posthorn resemble tubes rather than straight lines that should terminate at the edge of the horn. (See Rayon III, Small numerals, Figure RIII1a.) C. The right flag has no shading lines within its borders. All originals have at least 1 line of shading (type 28). D. The density of the background is good, light in color, but the background lines fit none of the 40 types.

Figure RI_3. A very good forgery on hard white paper. The red color covers the trefoil, which never occurs in the originals unless the entire shield shifts upwards.

3. Scott No. 9: Zumstein No. 17 I. An excellent forgery of this rarity (Figure RI_3) on hard white paper based on 3 copies. Another copy had soft white paper. The cross is about the correct size and the series on the posthorn is 2-3-3-2. This one is attributed to Fournier and is illustrated in Ragatz (1970). It can be identified quickly by the ground lines which look like a bent sausage in the shape of a “7” on its side just below the tails of the right flag. This forgery is well done and could be one of the award winners of Mercier; there are not too many serious deviations.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The red field covers the trefoil even though the field fits perfectly in all other places. If the field shifts in the originals, it affects all parts, not just the trefoil. B. The Roman numeral is small compared to the originals. The numerals should be as tall as the letters in “Rayon”. C. The top of the inscription band is missing above the “I”. This can also occur as a lithographic error. D. The shading under the inscription band is solid instead of being made up of 2 or 4 horizontal lines. E. There are some contoured lines in the escutcheon but hardly enough for this issue. F. The framing of the cross, although a believable single line, is too large for the whole cross.

3a. Scott No. 10; Zumstein 17 II. This forgery (Figure RI_3a) is realistic in the colors red and blue. The escutcheon is contoured; there are even some breaks of color in the cord; there are horizontal shading lines under the inscription band; and the posthorn has a series of rings of 2-3-3-2. The cross is unframed. Deviations are minor except for the paper which is soft and porous.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The open end of the posthorn is too open, i.e., it shows too much of the inside. No original type has such a characteristic. B. The “R” in Rp is 2.5 mm tall and in the originals it is about 2 mm tall. C. The background lines fit none of the 40 types. D. It is difficult to see if the cutting lines exist. E. The period after the Roman numeral is like a crescent moon; that is very possible in the originals but highly improbable. Little errors can occur when transferring the lithograph to another stone.

Note: The author has seen another copy with all of the above characteristics except the cross was properly framed. It was nearly canceled with a grill. This one was more believable at first sight, but the paper gave it away; it was soft!

Figure RI_4. For some reason or other I never did write up the Significant Deviations of the dark blue R I. I actually wrote up the entire Federal forgeries about 1990 when my eyes were in excellent shape. If a forgery came along that I had not seen and it was now available, I would then include it in its proper place. Since my eyes no longer see anything smaller than the “5” on a Rayon I stamp, you, as the reader, will have to judge how this photo differs from the originals. It is almost like my giving you a test as your professor. You will enjoy the exercise. It is stimulating. This forgery was later found on a postal card printed by Henry Heller of Bern, probably at the turn of the century. The government probably allowed this postal card to be made and it would not be considered a forgery but just a harmless reproduction. Obviously this “forgery” was cut out and shaved down to hide the backside printing. This explains the soft paper. On this same card is an Orts-Post of high caliber, but none of the garnish lines fit a true type. The small 15 Ct’s version on the card was well done in the shield area and in the inscription band.

Figure RI_5. A reasonable forgery of the dark blue Rayon I, because it is blurred as a heavily inked copy might be. The color is not plausible for this issue. It is a forgery from the Fournier collection marked “Faux” by the Commission.

5. Scott No. 7; Zumstein 15 II. This copy is heavily inked and hides many of the characteristics one examines. It is not possible to determine if series of rings is 2-3-3-2 as it should be. The strings within the posthorn ring are at a 90 degree angle which is correct (Figure RI_5).

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. There are no contour lines in the escutcheon; it is heavily black. The forger attempted to place a few contour lines at the lower left but did not follow through at the right. B. The red color is too large for the field. C. The left arabesque is not like the right; they are almost mirror images of one another. D. The cord or cable is entirely black which is not correct. There should be some flecking somewhere on the cable. E. The cable is broken at the rope of the lower cord loop. Figure RI_6. These two forgeries are similar except for color. One serious fault is that the “R” in Rayon is too far right. Courtesy of the late R.F. Bulstrode.

6. Scott Nos. 7 and 10; Zumstein 15 II and 17 II. These are not good forgeries. The paper is semi-hard to soft, and there are many deviations. (Figure RI_6).

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The angle of the strings within the horn form an acute angle - more so than in any original. B. The “R” in Rayon is too far right of the imaginary line formed between the cord and arabesque. C. The crosses are about 5 mm across instead of about 4 mm. D. The period after “Rp” touches the cord. E. There is no flange on the posthorn. F. The cord is solid blue or black without any white flecking. G. The garnish lines are continuous instead of being broken into short irregular lines. H. Cutting lines do not cross as they should (See Appendix B).

Figure RI_7. A poor forgery of Scott No. 10; Zumstein 17 II. The color is believable but there is too much space between the Roman I and Rayon. The horn has no flange.

7. Scott No. 10; Zumstein 17 II. This forgery has good color, but it has many faults. The thing that gives it away is the crunched (squeezed) look of the bottom of the escutcheon. It appears that the forger ran out of space at this point and made it fit (Figure RI_7).

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. There is too much space between the Roman I and “Rayon”. This space takes care of the Rayon II and III forgeries that were about to follow with the same characteristics. See Figures RII_4 and RIII_5. B. The escutcheon is deformed at the base. C. The horn does not have a flange. D. There are no shading lines in the flags. E. The garnish lines tend to be continuous. F. The cord or cable is solid instead of showing some flecking. G. The angle of the strings in the posthorn circle is acute. H. There is no period after the Roman numeral I. I. The cutting lines do not cross. See lower right. Serrane (1926) mentions this forgery but with fewer errors than reported above.

Figure RI_7a. A forgery of Scott No. 7; Zumstein 15 II that deceives no one. The characteristics shown here are similar to Figure RI_7 except this is a dark blue color. The cords are solid black instead of showing some flecking. The cutting lines do not cross.

Figure RI_8. A forgery of Scott No. 10; Zumstein 17 II printed on soft, porous paper. Note the Arabic “1” instead of a Roman numeral, and the absence of outer tendrils at the inside positions of the lower circles.

8. Scott No.10; Zumstein No. 17 II. This forgery (Figure RI_8) may get a passing grade at first glance from a novice because of its color. The escutcheon border has a series of contour lines. The cross is of a normal size and the shield color is good. The paper is thick and soft based on five copies. Close scrutiny, however, reveals many deviations. See Appendix B for the dark blue variety (Zum 17 II).

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The “1” is Arabic instead of a Roman numeral. B. The series of rings around the horn is 2-2-2-2. C. The angle of the strings within the posthorn ring is sharply acute. D. The inner offshoots of the cord (points 10b and 10c of Figure 5_1) are missing. E. The top serif of “P” touches the “R”; no original type has this characteristic. F. There are no shading lines within the flags as there should be. G. The cutting lines form a complete frame instead of crossing at the corners.

Figure RI_9. Another Spiro forgery showing the misprinting of the red shield onto the upper escutcheon.

9. Scott No. 7 and 10; Zumstein Nos. 15 II and 17 II. This Spiro forgery (Figure RI_9) is poor and resembles the forgery described under 10 of “Orts-Post”. The inscription, numerals, and colors were changed to produce this forgery. The Spiro brothers also made two shades of blue in Scott 7 or Zumstein 15 II; the colors are dark blue and the other is lighter, but both versions would be associated with the dark blue issue.

Rayon II Figure RII_1. At left, an excellent forgery of Scott No. 8; Zumstein No. 16 II, showing striking line similarities (garnish) between it and the original type 30 (right). Note that the cord of the forgery is very black and the original has flecks of white. The cutting lines of the forgery are not complete, with voids in the middle portions.

1. Scott No. 8: Zumstein No. 16 II. One of the best forgeries of the Federal Issues is illustrated in Figure RII_1, alongside an original of type 30 that it closely mimics. Compare the background lines for remarkable similarities! Compare the flags, the lettering, and the posthorn in addition to the background lines. The cross of the forgery is smaller than the original shown here, but sometimes the cross of an original is the size of that shown on the forgery.

This has been attributed to Fournier or possibly his predecessor, Louis-Henri Mercier who may have won an award for the accuracy of this forgery. The paper is hard.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The paper of the forgery is thin and hard, but is brownish-yellow throughout. There are brownish-yellow stamps of the early stones, but the paper of those is white on the back. Serrane (1926) mentions “a pale copy” of type 30 which the author has never seen. B. The outer line of the escutcheon at the very bottom forms a sharp “V”. None of the forty types has such a sharp angle. C. There is a solid shading under the inscription band rather than two or four lines of horizontal shading. D. There is a horizontal line that connects the tails of the right flat to form a small “A”. This does not occur on any of the stones in the type 30 position. E. The cord is solid black and the originals have faintly alternating white flecks showing through the blackish cord. F. The cutting lines are visible only at the corners, but not in mid-positions of the forgery.

Figure RII_2. This forgery is believable at first glance but the sham is only revealed after close study. All 4 copies are similar except for the ground lines.

2. Scott No. 8: Zumstein 16 II. At first glance this is a good forgery (Figure RII_2), since the density of the ground lines appear normal. However all 4 copies are different from one another. This can also be seen in Figure RII_2a (photo courtesy of the Bern Philatelic Museum). The stamp is yellow on hard white paper. The black ink is rather heavy (based on 16 copies), and it is difficult to determine the number of ring sets around the horn. The crosses range from 4.5 to 5.0 mm horizontally instead of 4.0 to 4.25 mm as in the originals.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The shading below the inscription band is solid, and the originals have two to four horizontal lines. B. The left loop of the right arabesque touches the top inner margin as no original does except for type 9. C. The lower portion of the escutcheon is very close to the cord; less than 0.3 mm at the closest point. The originals have distances of about 0.5 mm at their closest point. D. Both tails of the right flag touch the right loop. This happens only in types 8 and 40, but the right loops are closed on those originals and the loop of this forgery is broken to the left. E. The “R” in “Rayon” is to the right of the imaginary line drawn through the left cord and the left arabesque; only types 8 and 32 show this. F. The left horizontal foot of the “R” in “Rp” is wide; only type 25 has a similar feature. G. The posthorn looks normal, but it is so heavily inked that it is difficult to detect details. A break below the posthorn ring occurs fairly often in originals. H. The loop on the upper right is broken on all copies. I. The cutting lines do not cross at the corners but completely frame the forgery (Figure RII_2a, block of 6, courtesy of the Bern PTT Museum).

Note: Examination of 16 copies revealed 6 different types, i.e., the ground lines are different (Figures RII_2 and RII_2a). This is unusual except for Sperati’s specific types. Most forgeries have background lines of one kind throughout several values of the Rayons. Most forgers only changed colors and values, not background lines as in this particular forgery. The art shown in Figure RII_2a is the same; only the background lines and color changes. This was also observed at the PTT Philatelic Museum in Bern, Switzerland, which had the most complete collection of this forgery (Appendix D).

Figure RII_3. This is a forgery of type 38 but it is flat and dull black. It causes one to question it.

After studying Serrane’s (1926) description of what he claims is a forgery of type 38, it most closely resembled the one shown in Figure RII_3.

3. Scott No. 8; Zumstein No. 16 II (Figure RII_3). The forgery is a good one in one sense because it is a copy of type 38 and follows almost all of its r are characteristics including most of the ground lines. There are deviations near the top, but one might even overlook these as being a poorly printed copy, as this forgery is. The paper is hard, but when held to a strong light there are slight transparencies somewhat like a soft paper. When snapped between thumb and forefinger it does make a sound of hard paper. This is based on three copies, one of which is shown in Figures RII_3 and RII_3a (shown with framed cross). The framing lines in the upper left cross is as they should be. This forgery is attributed to Fournier, as it appears in some of his collections.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. When comparing type 38 to this forgery there is a significant difference in the region where the posthorn ring meets the posthorn. In type 38 the lines between these two features are missing and in the forgery those lines were drawn in very clearly. Compare Figure RII_3 with type 38 in Figure 5_5b. B. Another obvious deviations occurs when comparing this forgery to type 38 in the “Rp” region. There is no line extending left from the top of the “p”; it is a small speck on the upright of the “p”. The period is very small compared to the original type 38. C. The outer line of the escutcheon is broken in several places near the bottom. That line should only be broken at the curve directly above the left leg of the “R” in Rp. This forgery is correct here but there is a break in the curve just to the right of the top of the “10”. That break should not be there. D. The cord is solid black in all places and the originals always have a few places where some flecking of yellow shows through the cord. E. The cord is broken just below the upper right loop and loop extends into the left tail of the right flag. This also occurs in a variation of stones D and E. The photograph of actual copies on page 85, Muller, 1967, shows that the vertical cord just below the upper right loop is broken on D, RU and E, LO positions of those stones. It appears that the forger may have had copies of one of these positions to use as his model for his forgery. F. The rings around the horn are difficult to distinguish but that could happen if too much ink was used. G. Finally, some poetic license; there is an “S” on its side just below the trefoil. It looks as though it was an intentional insertion and may be the initial of the forger. This is more visible in Figure RII_3.

Figure RII_3a. A similar copy to Figure RII_3. However the cross is framed in black. Courtesy of the late R.D. Keller.

3a. Scott No. 6; Zumstein No. 16I (Figure RII_3a). The framing around the cross is formed with thin lines which extend beyond the corners. This never happens in the originals. The corners should be square without extensions. This stamp is so rare that it is seldom ever seem outside a museum. However, it was one of Sperati’s favorite Federals to forge; he made 5 distinct types of the framed cross (see Appendix A).

Figure RII_4. A forgery of Scott No. 8; Zumstein 16II. The color is believable but no flange on the horn and continuous garnish lines give it away. The artwork is similar to Figure RI_6).

4. Scott No. 8; Zumstein 16II (Figure RII_4). A forgery that is not deceiving if the collector has already seen several authentic Rayon II’s. The yellow color is good and the red of the shield is excellent. That red color is contained within the escutcheon. The paper of this copy is thin and hard, but the reverse side is more beige than white. This forgery is similar to Figures RI_6 and RIII_5 in all respects except for color and numerical values. There are certain points that are pertinent to the Rayon II value, and these are emphasized below. There is no shading in the flags which is correct for Rayon II.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The series of rings around the horn is 2-2-2-2. B. The space between “Rayon” and “II” is too large for this value (that space is later filled in Rayon III, Figure RIII_5). C. The angle of the strings in the posthorn rings is too acute for Rayon II. D. There is no period after “Rayon II” and there should be. Evidence for periods after “II” in types 5, 24 and 25 is difficult to find but is shown in Figure RII_4x (Kofranek 1994a). E. The ground lines of this forgery are not of the three types mentioned here. F. The garnish lines are continuous rather than being broken.

Figure RII_5. A poor forgery, even if one does not see the work “Fac-Simile” printed on the back. Note the horn ring is flattened and the escutcheon at the bottom is very blunt. There are no cutting lines between stamps. Note that the background lines are identical for both copies. Figure RII_5a is a Fournier proof of this.

5. Scott No. 8; Zumstein 16II. This forgery (Figure RII_5) is attributed to Fournier; it was marked with “Fac-Simile” on the back by The Philatelic Union of Geneva before releasing it in a collection. The paper is white and the crosses are about normal size. Another copy had yellowish beige paper.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The horn ring is flattened and is an oval. B. The escutcheon is very blunt and not sharp at the base. It is also broken in 2 places at the bottom. C. The trefoil is reduced to a small circle. D. There are no outer tendrils on the lower cord circles; in the originals there is at least one per type. E. The bottom serifs of the “A” and “Y” connect; which never occurs in the original types. F. There is no period after “II”. See number 4D above. G. The curl on the right foot of the “R” in “RAYON” is too curved. H. Figure RII_5 shows no cutting lines between stamps.

The color is reasonable, but the cross is too narrow in both directions. This copy was found in a Fournier collection. Courtesy of the late Dr. Felix Ganz.

6. Scott No. 8; Zumstein No. 16 II (Figure RII_6). This is forgery that may deceive a collector who has little experience with the Swiss Federals. The color is good. It has a reasonable cancellation, a boxed “KIENBERG’ of the group 56 (Andres and Emmenegger). There are many errors that set it apart from the genuine types.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The angle of the string is acute and it should be about 90 degrees. B. There is shading in both flags and there should not be any. C. The cross is too narrow in both directions. D. The Roman II should be connected or nearly so at the bottom. This “II” lacks any connection. E. The escutcheon at the lower left is too close to the cord for this issue. F. The inscription band is too tall and comes too close to the left border. G. The garnish lines appear continuous rather than being broken. H. There appears to be no cutting lines.

Figure RII_7. This forgery is similar in most respects to Figure RI8. The background lines and the configurations of posthorn, flags, etc. are the same. It is an inferior forgery.

7. Scott No. 8: Zumstein No. 16 II (Figure RII_7). This forgery will not deceive the advanced collector. The color is dark but some early printing also have a similar color. The reader is referred to look at the species description under Orts-Post or Rayon I; however, there are points for Rayon II that should be emphasized here. Two points in its favor are: there is no shading in the flags and there is contouring of the escutcheon.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The rings in the posthorn are 2-2-2-2. B. There are no tendrils (points 10b and 10c of Figure 5_1) on the inside location of the cord circles. C. Although there are contour lines on the escutcheon, the cord is totally black without a hint of flecking.

Figure RII_8. A Spiro forgery of the Rayon II value. 8. Scott No. 8: Zumstein No. 18 (Figure RII_8). This Spiro forgery is similar in all ways to No. 10 under “Orts-Post” except for the change in color, inscription lettering, and values. Twelve single copies were available for study: two were beige and the others had a yellow background. The paper was hard and the back was a cream color. There is shading in the flags, and they should be free of that shading. The author has never seen copies of this forgery with the framed cross.

RAYON III, SMALL NUMERAL The small 15 Cts and the small 15 Rp will be discussed together. Originally these two issues were produced from the second and the third rows of the Orts-Post stone. Therefore the only feature that varies is the “RP or the “Cts”. The forgers probably knew this, as it was discussed by Mirabaud and de Reuterskiold (1899). Many of the “better” forgeries were made after that date.

Figure RIII_1. An excellent canceled forgery of Scott No. 13; Zumstein No. 19 on hard, white paper. In Figure RIII_1a the cutting lines cross as they should. Note that the background lines of all four copies are the same, which would not be so in a block from the original sheet of ten (Figure RIII_1a). The “Rayon III” in the inscription band leans and should be upright.

1. Scott No. 13: Zumstein No. 19. This forgery (Figures RIII_1 and RIII_1a) is one of the finest I have examined amongst the Federal Issues other than the Sperati forgeries. This is attributed to Fournier (Ragatz 1970).

This forgery has many features that would be difficult to detect without have a great deal of experience or good reference material. Features that make it plausible are: the hard white paper, the fine lines throughout; 18 lines in the shield some of which penetrate the escutcheon as they should, and finally, the color is usually excellent. I have been deceived twice by copies of the large 15 Rp offered by reputable dealers before learning how to recognize it. One reason for being deceived is that the “R” leans left and the “III” leans right, which is correct for the large 15 Rp Rayon III. However, the “tubes” in the posthorn are still the revealing fault of this forgery. I still see many for sale in dealers’ stocks that they claim to be authentic copies (Figure RIII_1c)

Since this forgery has the true attributed of the inscription band, it is perhaps the first one made by the forger. When he made the small 15 Cts version he forgot to change the inscription band to an upright position as it should be. No small 15 Rp by this forger has been seen by the author.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The posthorn has a series of 2-2-3-2 rings, but, more importantly, they are not lines that terminate at the edge of the horn as the originals do -- these rings resemble small tubes that encircle the horn. This feature alone reveals the scam. B. The “R” in “Rayon” leans left and the “III” leans right. These are always upright in the originals for this issue (see type 3 of the originals). C. There is a minute but a definite space (about 0.2 mm) between the left middle escutcheon frame and the lower left one. All parts of the original escutcheon frame are in contact with each other. D. The left flag hangs down too straight, rather than having a definite curve in the middle as do the originals. E. If these are found in a block (Figure RIII_1a), one can see that the background lines of all these stamps are the same and thus have some clue that these are indeed bogus stamps. These were printed in sheets of 5 x 5 stamps. See Appendix B.

Figure RIII_1b. An excellent forgery of the small 15 centime issue, printed on thin, hard, white paper. Note that the circle touches the “C” of “Cts”, which never occurs in the originals. This is the same basic forgery as in Figure RIII_1 , right, and is the same basic forgery except the “C” does not touch and both the “15” and the “Cts” are smaller. This indicates that the forger had 2 trials of this species.

2. Scott No. 13; Zumstein No. 19. This forgery (Figure RIII_2) is excellent and basically the same as the Orts-Post forgery Figure OP_4. The defects in the escutcheon, the left arabesque, and the left circle touching the left inner border are all similar characteristics. The paper may be semi-hard to hard, thin and white (see Appendix B). There are horizontal shading lines below the inscription band on the right side. There are certain points that are pertinent only to the Rayon III, centime value and these are emphasized below.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The strings within the posthorn have an acute angle, and they should be at right angles or nearly so. B. There are about 20 vertical lines (17 is normal) in the shield and the left line does not cut into the escutcheon as it should. C. The right circle touches the “C” in “Cts” in the left copy and it should not. D. There is no shading in the flags as there should be, except at the far right of both copies. E. The “R” in Rayon leans too far left. It should be upright. F. None of the vertical lines in the shield cut any part of the escutcheon as happens often in the originals.

Figure RIII_3. A fairly good forgery of Scott No. 11; Zumstein 18 with many of the basic features for this issue. The cutting lines do not cross, and the paper is soft and porous which uncovers the forgery. See the full sheet in D_2.

3. Scott No. 11; Zumstein No. 18. This forgery (Figure RIII_3) has many of the characteristics to make it a plausible stamp until one tests the paper for hardness; it is soft and porous. The forger perhaps patterned this after type 1 since the upper cord loop is close to the border and broken at the top. The letters “Rayon III” are upright and resembles type 1. The copy shown is brick red.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The right foot of the “R” in Rayon sweeps under the “A” which is unusual even for type 1 of the originals. B. The strings within the posthorn ring form an acute angle rather than a right angle. C. There are 17 vertical lines as there should be but none cuts the escutcheon border in one or two places as some should. D. The left point of the left flag almost touches the loop of the cord; none of the originals has the left flag that close to the cord. E. The series of rings around the posthorn appear to be 2-3-2-2 or 0-3-2-3; it is difficult to tell. A second copy had a 2-3-3-2 with a single line showing near the mouthpiece. This latter point is possible in certain Orts-Post and Rayon III issues (Types 7, 8 and 9). See plates (Figure 5_6) and the text for genuine characteristics of this issue. F. The cutting lines form a complete frame instead of crossing at the corners. Appendix D illustrates a complete sheet in which the 15 Cts variety also appears.

Figure RIII_4. A poor forgery of the small 15 rappen printed on very soft porous paper.

4. Scott No. 11; Zumstein No. 18. Not a good forgery: one is suspicious at once (Figure RIII_4). The posthorn has the proper series of rings: 2-3-3-2, but beyond that, there are many faults. The cancellation was made with a rubber stamp instead of a steel tool.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. Although the horn is fairly well done, the strings in the horn are acute instead of a right angle or nearly so. B. The “Rp” is too large for the small 15. C. The paper is very soft, porous, and waffled on the reverse side. D. There are 19 vertical lines in the shield and the left line does not cut into the escutcheon as it should. E. The cross is small; 3.5. mm instead of about 4 mm. F. There are no definite arabesques; they blend into the background (Luff, 1896). G. The trefoil is like a four-leaf clover instead of having 3 parts plus a small circle at the top. H. The cord is solid instead of having some flecking.

Figure RIII_5. This forgery is similar to Figure RII_4, but the inscription letters are more realistic than those previously described copies. The spacing between “Rayon” and “III” is about normal. The color is a bit rosy which could possibly happen in some originals. The paper of this copy was soft.

5. Scott No. 11; Zumstein No. 18 (Figure RIII_5). There are certain points that pertain to the Rayon III value and are emphasized below.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The Roman numeral III leans right and all originals of this issue are upright or nearly so. The”R” in “Rayon” leans far left which is okay in both cases for Rayon I and II but not for Rayon III. B. The angle within the posthorn ring is acute instead of a right angle. Finally, all of the other art characteristics of Rayon I and II such as the crunched escutcheon at the bottom and no flange on the horn, are also evident. See Figures RI_7 and RII_4. C. There are no shading lines within the flags and there should be some. D. The outer line of the escutcheon in the lower left almost touches the cord; the originals do not approach this closeness. E. Although there are 18 vertical lines in the shield none of the left cut into the escutcheon as they should. F. The bottom point of the right arabesque is directly above the right digit of “III”. In the originals that point is always to the right of the “III”. G. The background lines are coarse and none match any of the original types.

Figure RIII_6. The color of this forgery is good and the paper is hard. This forgery is attributed to Fournier.

6. Scott No. 11; Zumstein No. 18 (Figure RIII_6). This forgery is similar to those in Figure RIII_6a but an alteration in inscription band letters shows that the “R” in “Rayon” and the “III” were made upright as they should be for this issue.

A full sheet showing the various cancels is offered in Figure RIII_6a. The reverse side is lined with the word “Fac-simile” many times. Although this sheet was marked with the “Fac-Simile” on the back side by the Philatelic Union of Geneva for release in Fournier collections, this sheet does not seem to be one produced by Fournier. None of the round date cancellations or the boxed “Franco” are similar to the Fournier cancellations shown in the Fournier collections (Ragatz, 1970). Perhaps these sheets were in amongst Fournier’s stock in his lair, and perhaps the committee gave orders to mark everything. If so, this forgery could have been made by another forger and bought by Fournier for his world wide sales. The eleventh stamp in the sheet is canceled “Saanen, 14 Jun, ‘59”. Curious! Could it have been the birthday of this forger? These stamps were void after 1854 (see Figure RIII_6c).

As mentioned before, in the figure caption, the forger was astute enough to change the “R” in “Rayon” and the “III” to an upright position to conform to the originals of the small numeral variety.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: One can see the description of number 5 under Rayon II for some of the art characteristics. There are some features pertinent to Rayon III that are emphasized here. A. There are about 23 lines in the shield instead of 17 or 18. None cut into the escutcheon as they should in some places. B. There are no outer tendrils at the lower cord circles. Type 4 also has this omission, but only because the ink was missing on those tendrils. Close examination reveals that they are present. C. The left flag droops straight down. It should be curved. D. There are no cutting lines between copies.

6a. Scott No. 13; Zumstein No. 19. There was a block of 6 of the 15 Centimes variety at the PTT museum in Bern (Appendix D) similar to Figure RIII_6. A quick examination of the block revealed that all characteristics remained except that the “Rp” was changed to “Cts”.

Figure RIII_7. A crude forgery of the small 15-centime by the same forger of Figure OP_8. Note the similarities of the background lines of these two forgeries.

7. Scott No. 13: Zumstein No. 19. This is rather a crude forgery (Figure RIII_7). The color is a deep brick red which is unusual; however, the printing is too coarse for this issue. The major faults of this forgery are described under Figure OP_8. There are certain points that pertain to this Rayon III, centime value and they are emphasized below.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. There are 14 thick vertical lines in the shield instead of 17-18 slim lines. The left line does not cut into the escutcheon as it should. B. It is not possible to determine the number of rings around the horn and the bell of the horn, as they appear solid. C. There are no shading lines in the flags as there should be. D. The “III” in the inscription band leans too far right and the “R” in Rayon too far left. E. The cutting lines do not appear to cross in the lower left corner of this copy. F. Of four copies seen, one had soft paper, the other three were on semi-hard paper.

7a. Scott No. 11: Zumstein No. 18. The author has seen a small 15 Rp that resembles the small 15 Cts. The color seen was an orange red and the paper was soft. The only difference besides color was an “Rp” substituted for “Cts”. The period after “Rp” touches the right cord loop; this occurs in types 1, 4 and 10, but this copy is no match for the originals.

Figure RIII_8. This copy was undoubtedly marked in crayon to indicate that it was a “forgery”, “falsch” or “faux”. In any language, it is a poor forgery. There are too many lines in the shield and the strings in the posthorn ring form too sharp an angle. The numeral “15” is too tall and the cross too small (3.5 mm across).

8. Scott No. 13: Zumstein No. 19 (Figure RIII_8). This forgery is unique in many ways, but it is not necessarily deceiving. It is too ornate; the forger was too artistic with his touch. There are too many vertical lines in the shield and the posthorn has many things wrong with it. The paper is soft.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The numeral “15” is too large (2.5 mm vs just under 2 mm) for the centime issue. B. The strings in the posthorn ring are sharply acute and double and they should not be. C. The series of rings around the posthorn are 2-2-2-2 instead of 2-3-3-2. There are also small vertical shading lines between the sets of rings (too ornate). D. There are too many vertical lines in the shield (26 vs 17 or 18). E. The outer border of the escutcheon touches the lower cord which never happens in the originals. F. The “R” in Rayon leans left and the Roman III leans right which is not correct for the small numeral issue. G. There are no outer tendrils on the lower circle and there should be.

Note: Perhaps the forger made the large 15 Rp (Figure RIII_8a) first because he included the leaning of the “R” in Rayon and in the Roman numeral III. In addition he did not change the size of the 15 to less than 2 mm in height. The “small 15 Rp” probably does not exist if the above supposition is true.

Figure RIII_9. Spiro forgeries showing crudeness in the posthorn and shield areas.

10. Scott No. 13; Zumstein No. 19. These Spiro forgeries (Figure RIII_9) are similar to No. 10 of the Orts-Post except for color, numeral, and inscription changes. There is heavy shading around the cross except at the top. In the original, the cross has a single line on both left-central vertical lines. The printing is crude and there are no cutting lines between stamps. The upper frame line of the inscription band is weak or absent. The lines in the shield are so poorly printed that it is difficult to count them. The colors on these vary from brick red to light pink. The author has never seen a “small 15 Rp” of Spiro. Figure RIII_9a shows a typical sheet of 25 copies of 15 Cts variety.

Rayon III, Large Numeral The large numeral issue should be discussed separately from the small numeral issue because they were prepared from different parts of the Orts-Post stone. The large numeral was made from the fourth and fifth vertical rows and only the “2 1/2” had to be changed to “15” in the lower part. Of course the entire inscription band and shield was changed drastically. “Rayon” leans left and the “III” leans right in this issue, contrary to the small issue where the letters and the “III” are upright or nearly so. Occasionally a forger might copy the garnish lines such as Jean de Sperati did, and with this in mind it is important to know the art characteristics of the originals as well.

Figure RIII_1c. An excellent forgery of the large 15 Rappen with what appears to be a cancellation made with a steel tool.

1a. Scott No. 12; Zumstein No. 20 (Figure RIII_1c). This forgery is the same as Figure RIII_1, small numeral, except for the substitution of a large “15” and “Rp (instead of “Cts”). There are many characteristics that make this large 15 plausible. It is modeled after type 9, not type 5 as Serrane (1926) claimed. Many of the features are closer to type 9 including ground lines on the right and at the bottom. Serrane also chides Fournier for having his shading lines cut into the escutcheon at the bottom; however this occurs at the bottom in types 8 and 9 of the originals. Notice that the two left shading lines also cut into the escutcheon in both the forgery and the originals as they should. Serrane also did not approve of the way the “R” in Rayon touched the inscription band; however it does in the true type 9.

Characteristics “1a” and “1c” of the small 15 Rayon are also evident in this copy which marks this as a forgery. This particular forgery was produced first of the two (Cts or Rp) because the “R” in Rayon leans left and the “III” leans right as they should in the large 15 types. This was carried to the small “15 Cts” and these two features should be almost upright rather than in a leaning position.

When this forgery is canceled, it is very realistic and is frequently for sale in dealers’ stockbooks both in the United States and in Europe. This forgery was probably made by Louis Mercier and is commonly found in Fournier collections.

Figure RIII_8a. A forgery of the large 15-rappen made by the forger of Figure RIII_8; only the lettering and coloring were changed. Note the excess lines in the shield.

6b. Scott No. 12; Zumstein No. 20 (Figure RIII_6b). This forgery (Figure RII_5) is similar to No. 5 of Rayon II, except that the Roman numeral was changed to “III” and the numeral “10” was changed to “15”. The only things that make this forgery plausible are the color and that the “R” in Rayon leans left and the “III” leans to the right. See number “5” under Rayon II for details on the characters that give it away as a forgery.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The two breaks at the bottom of the escutcheon reported for Rayon II have been totally repaired. B. The lines in the shield are about 23 instead of 17 and none cut into the escutcheon. C. The “R” in Rayon has a fancy foot sweeping right. D. All of the originals except type 3 (left) have outer tendrils (offshoots). This forgery has no outer tendrils. E. It is easy to see that the cutting lines are absent.

Figure RIII_8a. The forgery of this issue is just like the “centime” issue (Figure RIII_8) except the “Rp” has been substituted for the “Cts”. The cross is too small and the art too ornate.

8a. Scott No. 12; Zumstein No. 20 (Figure RIII_8a). The Rayon III in the inscription band leans the correct way for this issue and the “15” is about the correct size. The paper is soft.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The outer border of the escutcheon touches the lower cord which never occurs in the originals. B. There are too many vertical lines in the shield -- about 26 instead of 17 or 18. C. There are no outside offshoots on the lower circles (points 10a and 10d of Figure 5_1). D. The series of rings around the horn is 2-2-2-2 instead of 2-3-3-2. There are also vertical shading lines between these rings (unusual). E. The strings of the posthorn ring are double instead of single, and the angle is sharply acute. F. There is no period after “Rp” because the “Rp” was placed too close to the lower right circle. G. The paper is thick and soft compared to the originals. H. There do not appear to be any cutting lines present.

9b. Scott No. 12; Zumstein No. 20. This Spiro forgery is similar to No. 10 of the Orts-Post except for color and numeral and inscription changes. The available copy was more orange than red, and the top inscription frame line was missing.

Figure RIII_10 is a sheet printed for all seasons. Fournier left nothing to chance and printed a large 15 centime as well, a rarity amongst Federal forgeries, indeed.

10, 10a, and 10b; all three types of the 15 Rappen. Scott Nos. 11, 13, 12; Zumstein 18, 19 and 20. There are so many faults that it is difficult to know where to start. These sheets are common to all Fournier collections I have seen.

SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS: A. The most striking errors are the straight drooping flags with no shading. B. The strings within the horn ring form an acute angle, and there should not be an acute angle. C. “Rayon” leans left and the “III” right for the small numeral issues, but this is Ok for the large 15 Rappen. D. The garnish lines are continuous and should not be. E. The entire drawing is too mechanically decorative including the ground lines which are one continuous line. F. The cutting lines do not cross. One can instantly see that even the best of the group (Large 15 Rp) leaves much to be desired. With this, I leave this poorly designed forgery, and perhaps an excellent way to conclude the study of the forgeries of the Federals of Switzerland until more forgeries surface.

The following two reproductions of the Rayon I (Figure 6_2) might be taken for essays of these two since Hertsch (1924) illustrate something close to these two reproductions. The two reproductions do resemble figure 10 on page 285 in the book of Hertsch (1924) and one can see that a 5 Rappen is also shown in yellow as a proof. Now when one looks at Figure 6_3 there are two images that look alike. The above subjects are under investigation. I never placed them amongst my forgeries to be tabulated but often wondered from whence they had come.

When I read my May, 1988 edition of The American Philatelist, there were these two that appeared on the front cover with many older stamp reproductions of Europe and the United States. I was relieved as it showed me I was correct in not placing them in my forgery collection. The front cover (Figure 6_3) of this issue appears here. The original cover was actually a music sheet to “The Stamp Galop” printed in London by the Ewer Co. The music was composed by Arthur O’Leary in 1864. There was a stamp craze during this period, and the year before someone composed musical notes to “The American Stamp Galop Polka” (Welch 1988). The Master Forger Jean de Sperati From Jean de Sperati’s autobiography (Anonymous 1955) we learn quite a lot about the man and his eventual rise to an infamous threat to the hobby of stamp collecting. He was born Giovanni de Sperati in Pistoia, Italy on October 14, 1884. His father was an officer who fought in campaigns against Austria and after retiring, opened a mineral factory. Young Sperati became an accountant for his father. He and his 3 brothers were all expected to continue the business. The company soon failed because of Sperati senior’s lack of business experience. One of his brothers joined the army to become a photographer and another became a stamp dealer. He said he owed his career to these two brothers. Jean continued in school to learn accounting, but his interest was in the studio of the brother working with chemicals used in photography. At the age of 15 he purchased a 12 volume set of “L’Encyclopedia di Chemica” by Dr. Selmi at a bargain price of 50 lire. From these books he found his ultimate vocation in chemistry. Jean set his home afire in Bologna while he experimented with phosphorous and carbon sulphate. Jean worked with his brother and eventually followed him to Torino where they opened two workshops for graphic arts. Here he conducted experiments on his own to perfect photographic processes. He was now gaining an education in engraving, lithography, photography and heliography (prints made by a photo-engraving process). He later acquired knowledge of paper from his cousin who owned a paper mill. He then spent a year with his cousin learning more about papers. He now learned how to prepare paper pulp by passing it through the stages of cleansing on through to the final process of preparing sheets of paper. At this time, he also discovered his talent and passion for imitation. He was able to imitate his father’s or mother’s signature, easily deceiving his brothers. He recalled that he had this talent in school at age 10 when he forged his teacher’s signature. His later combined his zeal for chemistry, graphic arts and imitations into philately which lead him to his “Philatelie d’Art”. Jean joined his older brother, the stamp dealer, who convinced Jean to make reproductions of certain San Marino stamps. He claimed his first attempts of engraving and lithography “were only passable”. His brother was acquitted on a charge of forgery, but Jean said it did not affect him as it was not his business. The local newspaper insinuated that the family was found guilty of forgery. Now, from these first imitations of San Marino stamps, his hidden love was around to discover if these stamps could be improved based on his knowledge of graphic arts. Upon moving to Paris in 1909 to advertise his brother’s “products”, he met several philatelists. He asked their opinion of some stamp imitations he brought with him. One of those stamp collectors gave him a genuine stamp to imitate. After it was finished, the philatelist sent it to a famous expert, Herr M. Thier of Berlin; it came back signed as authentic. With this, his plan solidified. He embarked on a project to get evidence to demonstrate the inability of experts to detect his imitations. He spent the next 40 years devoted to this occupation of improving his “Philatelie d’Art”, Figure 7_1 He truly succeeded in his mission by producing up to 234 forgeries (Anonymous 1955) and placed some in his “Livre d’Or” (The Book of Gold). None of his Swiss forgeries were in this book; however, it was speculated by the British Philatelic Association that he only started on the reproductions of Swiss stamps after the German occupation of France. Switzerland had very strict laws concerning philatelic forgeries compared to neighboring countries. Sperati’s first Swiss reproduction, Zurich 4 Rp, arrived on the scene in June, 1942 (Figure 7_2). He then wrote his famous book “La Philatelie sans Experts” (Sperati, 1946) in which he chided the experts that he deceived with his almost perfect forgeries. Some of his methods of forging stamps were rather new to the “game”, and these did fool unalert experts and many philatelists. There were not many copies out prior to World War II, and it really was his testing period for the experts. When his forgeries were detected in the trade, he stopped placing those on the market and worked to improve the product (Mueller, 1949). The French customs prosecuted Jean de Sperati on April 7, 1942 in Chambery for attempting to smuggle out of France 18 “stamps” of great value, 78,000 francs (Figure 7_3). He did not declare that these were actually his forgeries, but he asked the court in November 1942 to declare the “stamps” to be forgeries. Sperati asked Dr. Edmond Locard, a French criminologist, to make such a statement to absolve him of this crime. Much to Sperati’s surprise, Dr. Locard gave his opinion on July 12, 1942 that all of the “stamps” were genuine and at the time had a value of 223,000 francs! Sperati now revealed that his “so called stamps” were in reality his own forgeries, and therefore there was no reason to charge him with customs fees (duty). After months of court proceedings, Dr. Locard made the following statement on January 4, 1944: “Conclusion: With all certainty and evidence, all stamps mentioned are NOT imitations” (signed) Edmond Locard. Most of the forgeries in question as seen in Figure 7_3 are of Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Hong Kong, and old German States (Anonymous, 1955). On July 27, 1945 an appeal court at Chambery was appointed to get experts to decide on the authenticity of those 18 “stamps”. Many experts refused to take that assignment and more than 2 years passed before Mr. M. Leon Dubus declared (January 31, 1948) that none of the “stamps” was genuine, but that they could easily have deceived inexperienced collectors. The sentence came on April 15, 1948 and Sperati was to pay 5000 francs court costs and 20,000 francs for evasion of duty. This was not the end, but on July 25, 1953 a final judgement was stated to be 550,000 francs which escalated from an original 300,000 francs to cover court costs. The court then refused an order to destroy Sperati’s stock of forgeries not actually used in court proceedings since they was no law in the French constitution prohibiting such imitations of stamps (Anonymous, 1955). Mr. Stanley Phillips of the British Philatelic Association had made a statement at a 1932 council meeting “the Sperati forgeries were considered so dangerous at the time, that it was decided to suppress all information about them” (Anonymous, 1955). This suppression of information actually gave Sperati an additional 20 years to work and start distributing his products after the war. Sperati had approval booklets of 20 pages. He printed a golden seal, “El sol de Mayo” of Uruguay (Figure 7_4) on most sheets to identify his reproductions. They were affixed with hinges and many, not all, had his signature on the back written in soft pencil. Comparisons of several collections on hand showed that no two of them were identical; some were canceled, other were mint copies (Mueller, 1949). It appeared to Mueller (1949), who had seen many such collections, that Sperati wanted to keep the experts on their toes by creating uncertainty. However, by sending out these approval booklets, this also allowed experts to study his methods on numerous forgeries; he, in essence, disclosed his secrets which helped experts fight him and other forgers as well (Mueller, 1949). Another type of approval also became evident as shown in Figure 7_5. Sperati had favorite countries which he forged, one of which was Switzerland, but he also made numerous reproductions of Uruguay, Spain, Buenos Aires, France, and Oldenburg. Sperati essentially used the same methods other forgers used except he, with his photographic and chemistry background, greatly improved on them. A forger requires a die of the stamp and the proper paper to make a good reproduction. Since all the stamps of Switzerland that Sperati reproduced were imperforate lithographs, Sperati’s job was easier than when he forged canceled copies of engraved stamps which might be perforated. The latter procedure is one of great interest and can be studied in the BPA book (1955). He usually made dies of about 32 x 45 mm in size (Figure 7_6). “The transfer process was undoubtedly a photographic one” (Mueller, 1949). The design was probably enlarged, retouched to remove errors which might not be found on the originals. However, in the lithographic process there were always small flaws which were constantly present and eventually gave away the reproduction. This is well illustrated and written in Appendix A, taken directly from the BPA book of 1955. Many of Sperati’s Swiss forgeries would have been more difficult to discern without having had the black and white die proofs to study and to compare to the genuine stamp. The paper used for Swiss reproduction was probably made from basic ingredients for paper since no original paper was available. In Sperati’s younger days he worked in a paper factory and learned the trade. On many of his reproductions, a cheap stamp, with the true cancellation, was bleached. The cancellation, however, remained and he printed over this original paper with an expensive value which in all cases had the correct perforations for that issue. The fact that he printed color over the cancellation could not be casually detected by the human eye. Only after one enlarged the photo, could it be detected that the color was over the cancellation. He did not have these problems with Swiss stamps since they were made with dies that already had the cancellation on it (Figure 7_7). This cancellation was always in the same place on these Swiss stamps which later enabled experts to tell it actually was a Sperati. His black cancellations on the Federal administration issues always looked flat compared to genuine canceled stamps. This too was a telltale characteristic of Sperati forgeries. After studying his forgeries of a given issue, one becomes cognizant of his errors and shortcomings. Experts are now aware of these, thanks mainly to the BPA book of his work (1955). Most often, nowadays, copies of his have the BPA purple mark on the back (Figure 7_8), but occasionally one is lucky enough to find one with only his signature or better yet one with nothing on the reverse side. Nevertheless his forgeries can now be detected, and one can be happy to have his forgery with a certificate proving it truly is a “genuine” Sperati forgery. The author has one such certificate. The genuine stamps of Switzerland that Sperati reproduced as mentioned, were all the lithographed ones. He produced a total of 58 varieties. If one does not count the framed crosses in the Federal administration issues, there were 47. He made many types of the Federal issues and seemed to be fond of the Poste Locale, of which he made seven types including a pair. Some had framed crosses, others did not. Many of these are illustrated in this text. Details are given in Appendix A from the book, The Work of Jean de Sperati, that the British Philatelic Association published (Anonymous, 1955). The forgeries of the stamps of the Federal administration issue came as late as 1943 and continued until 1951. Below is a summary of the types (positions on the sheet) he produced of the issues: Orts-Post, T 37, 38 (pair), T 13 Poste Locale, T 14, 15 (pair), T 20, T 1* (3?), T 35,T 10, T 23 Rayon I, Dark Blue, T 39, T 6 (he claimed 2 versions of the latter) Rayon I, Light Blue, T 4, T 14, T23** Rayon II, T 11, T 12, T 31, 32, 33 (Strip of 3) Rayon III, Small 15 Rp, T 4, T 9 Rayon III, Small 15 Cts, T 1, T 3 Most versions have framed crosses, but there are some without. See Appendix A to match types with reproduction faults for identity of his forgeries.

• Reproduction D was erroneously recorded as type 3 when in reality it is type 1 (Kofranek, 1994). See reproduction of article at end of Appendix A.

• • Sperati claimed he made a type 23 but the BPA did not find it amongst his material that they had purchased. Perhaps a collector will corroborate Sperati’s claim.

All of the Federal issues appear as colored or as black and white die proofs; some are shown in Figures 7_6 and 7_9, and other Figures appear throughout the text in plates. Any of these which were purchased by the BPA now have purple marks on the reverse. Very often these die proofs were signed handsomely by Jean de Sperati. The black and white die proofs clearly show any variation in printing from the originals. Beautiful copies of Rayon II strip of 3 complete with framed cross, a fantastic rarity if ever found in the original, appear as mint or canceled versions (Figures 7_10 and 7_11). In chapter four of the BPA book (1955) some interesting comments are made regarding the printing of Sperati’s lithographed reproductions. These are: “D. Loss of White Space.” Mr. Louis Meinertzhagen observed differences between the black die proof and the black plate of the same stamp, as would be in the cases of the Federal issues. “He noted that even if the die proof had no margins, it could be distinguished from the plate proof by the superiority in fineness of the impressions. In the process of reproduction every single line in the design becomes slightly thickened, with the consequence that there is a loss of white spaces between lines”. He said the reproduction appears a bit rougher than the originals and in addition “will also appear to be slightly more heavily printed”. “E. Lines of shading”. Examinations of originals with a 10 power loop of an original will show parallel lines having equal thickness whereas the reproductions are sometimes broken and appear thicker which is also an example of the loss of white space. “F. Frame lines”. Reproductions do not show signs “of the waves of surplus ink at the edges of their frame lines”. In addition to the above observations one must emphasize that the Orts-Post and Post Locale issue reproductions do appear as flat black compared to the original stamps. Sperati was not above placing his forgeries on cover to “fool” the experts; two of these are illustrated, one is with a mixed franking which makes it very rare (Figures 7_12 and 7_13). Occasionally he would also place one of his reproductions on one piece which would be carefully “tied” with one of his forged cancellations (Kofranek, 1994. a). He was meticulous in his work to deceive, but those slight errors in his reproductions always gave away the “game”. Eventually, with the study of the British Philatelic Associations work to unearth Sperati’s flaws and errors, experts were able to identify “a Sperati” by having become familiar with the characteristics of the issue in question. Mr. Edwin Mueller of the Mercury Stamp Company in New York City knew well of Sperati’s forgeries of the classics, and he wrote of Sperati’s impact on the hobby (Mueller, 1949). He made absolutely no mention of Sperati’s reproductions of the classics that he had listed in that catalog (Mueller, 1958). Of course, he had to have known of the BPA’s publication (1955) of Sperati’s works; perhaps, he thought they were no longer a threat to the hobby of stamp collecting. Sperati was still in business in 1953 but the next year the British Philatelic Association bought his works for 10 million francs with the promise that he would not continue. He died in 1957 at the age of 74 in Aix-les-Bains, France. The following two letters written in English by Jean Sperati have come to the attention of the author. The name of the recipient is kept secret, but we know he lived in the United States. These letters were copied to the best of my ability, considering differences in penmanship between Europe and America. Jean Sperati’s command of the English language was excellent. When one sees the prices he offered for his “works of art” compared to prices collectors are willing to pay now, it is no wonder he said “I even have customers which are not philatelists who buy from me as artistic investments.”

Aix-Les-Bains, Box 71 May 12, 1949

Mr. D.J.W. ------ New York Dear Sir, In answer to your letter of May 2. Re: my “Art Philately”. I even have customers which are not philatelists who buy from me as artistic investments. I am 65 years old -- my production is very little, my process colours, specially, elaborated, being for long complimented - I have heard that people have even sold items of my production as scarce originals. Directly, I offer low reasonable prices of my artistic works. Re: your letter: I have reproduced total to date 300 different works of scarce old stamps - If you have interest for Europe, South America or British Empire (North British America), I can send you most important selections. Payments can be made in USA notes by ordinary mail or air mail - Not registered (Registered are often opened and value seized). The notes must not be visible by examination. Awaiting to hear from you with particulars. With Best Regards, Yours Sincerely, Signed Jean Sperati ( Editor’s note - Figure 7_14 shows his signature on a forgery) A second letter follows:

Aix-Les Bains May 20, 1949 Dear Sir W. In answer to your letter of May 17. My compliments for your remarkable works. Can I keep or return it? Our samples of art I offer you. (No more than one stamp of a kind). Four old USA and Confederate Stamps for $25.00. A collection of scarce stamps of USA and British America. Catalog value over $1000 for $35.00. A collection of scarce stamps of Europa. Catalog value over $1000 for $25.00. A collection of scarce stamps of South America. Catalog value over $1000 for $30.00. Payments in USA notes by air mail or ordinary mail - not registered. I thus will forward by air mail. Correction amended After a matter of $25 minimum; selections are sent on approval, on application. Hoping to hear from you. Sincerely, (signed) Jean Sperati All my copies are soft pencil autographed (He again signed, showing how) Jean Sperati (Editor’s comments to Jean Sperati’s letters) Since the author does not have the correspondence which was sent to Mr. Sperati, it is difficult to know what the prospective client in America had sent to Mr. Sperati or what was requested of Sperati. It is obvious that Sperati desired to sell his wares and receive compensation, tax free from both the customs and the revenue service. This was a time when he still was involved in court proceedings with customs for having sent stamps (actually forgeries) to Portugal during World War II. Of the European stamps he offered, some of the possible Swiss stamps (reproductions) could have been the 4 Rp Zurich (Type I); possibly Types I and II, vertical background of the 6 Rp Zurich, although the cliches had just been made in April, 1949; whereas the “Geneva’s” had cliches which were dated August, 1949 or later; the 4 ct and 5 ct “Vaud” (1944); the 5 ct “Neuchatel” (1946); the 2-1/2 Rp “Winterthur” (1948). In the Federals the possibilities were only slight. The 2-1/2 Rp Orts-Post (T 13) was made 1945; the 2-1/2 Rp Poste Locale had many made but only type 1 (1943) was available; the 5 Rp dark blue, types 6 and 39 were both produced in February, 1949; the 15 Rp small figure, type 4 only as it was made in February of 1949, but type 9 was made in December of the same year; 15 Cts, types 1 and 3 were both made in February, 1949. His United States reproductions must have been the second stamp of U.S., the 10 cent black of 1847; the 5 cent New York of 1845 which was finished before World War II as this is the one which “fooled” both German and French experts prior to 1940; the 1846 five cent Providence R.I. which also was deemed genuine by the same experts during this same period; the confederate must have been the 1863 10 cent which was made in 2 plates, a dull blue and a milky blue. All of the above dates were obtained from the book “The Work of Jean de Sperati” published by the British Philatelic Association (BPA) in 1955. It was rumored that Jean Sperati in spite of his poor eyes and after having sold his “entire” collection to the BPA, continued to work with his “Philatelic Art”. Francois Fournier and his life as a Stamp Forger During a period from the late Victorian age to World War I, Francois Fournier was considered the “master forger” of philatelic material. By the time that his business was in ruin by the advent of World War I, he had offered in his 1914 price list, 3671 varieties of stamp reproductions or 796 sets for a total price of 2150 Swiss francs or about $430 (Ragatz 1947). Fournier produced a price list of forgeries (“works of art”), number 17 issued in 1914, which was 64 pages long. This list is probably the most complete list of offerings which were priced in Swiss francs. Of the many countries listed he had for sale, 49 Swiss reproductions were offered. One can easily agree that Fournier was the “master forger” after having studied many of his reproductions. However, a forger with more skilled methods followed in the late 1920’s and in through the World War II period. That was Jean de Sperati who used photo lithography to produce his forgeries of the Swiss and other classics. Not too much is known of Francois Fournier of his early life except that he was born in France and fought in the Franco-Prussian War. He later met H.L. Mercier in Geneva, Switzerland about 1891. They were partners for several years, but Fournier eventually took over the business. It is of the opinion of the author that the early reproductions of H.L. Mercier were those reproductions that won many awards in France. Eastwood (1929) listed the following awards of location of the honor bestowed upon the Fournier company. “Six crosses of merit, insignia of honour, eight gold medals, four grand prizes and six diplomas of honour have been awarded the firm at the International Exhibitions of St. Etienne 1895, Nice 1896, Marseilles 1896 and 1897, Toulon 1897 and Lyon 1898. The Trade Mark has been deposited at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property at Berne under No. 16062.” Because these dates were early in the collaboration of these two men, it is assumed by the author that Mercier produced those five reproductions before Fournier ever thought about the forgery business. Nevertheless, Fournier’s business of selling forgeries in earnest, or as he referred to them, “works of art”, starting in 1905 when he published his “Le Fac-Simile” on a regular basis. The publication grew rapidly by subscription to collectors, but copies were given gratis to dealers. He was offering his approvals of about 2,000 varieties in 1905. At that time his business was at 6 Rue de Rhone, Geneva, but in 1907 he moved to a larger location on 11 Rue de Rhone, Geneva where his business began progressing well. Not only was he manufacturing stamp reproductions but he had 5 full time stamp restorers on his payroll. He offered to repair damaged stamps to such an impeccable condition that the repair would be unnoticeable. Some of his best customers at that time were European dealers of renown. It was said that Fournier was appalled when he heard that dealers were selling his reproductions in Europe as stamp originals (Ragatz 1947). On the other hand, stamp organizations refused to allow Fournier to advertise his stamp reparations, or offering of his reproductions in their journals. At this time his publication “Le Fac-Simile” grew to 25,000 copies, some by subscription but most were gratis. Fournier was enraged because he actually thought he was doing the collectors a favor by offering high value stamps as reproductions at low costs. He really believed his reproductions were works of art which saved collectors money. In addition he believed that repairing stamps fell in the same category as restoring antique paintings. Below are three separate quotations of Fournier illustrating how he felt about selling his forged reproductions or repairing stamps of value. “Only fools pay more than 10% of catalog for any stamp. Authentic facsimiles, often in better state than the originals offered in commerce, may be had of us at a few Francs. If you insist upon the genuine article, we will reconstruct any damaged copy so as absolutely to defy detection, at low cost. The average dealer would unblushingly sell you such a restored copy anyway. Buy direct of us and save your hard-earned money. Certainly no one will know the difference.” Another, “Instead of spending 3,500 Francs for a set of Swiss Cantonals whose authenticity is always open to doubt, spend a few Francs for facsimiles which look far better and you can’t be swindled.” A third, portraying a poor man, with the caption, “Why did this man become a beggar? Because he invested all his funds in so-called “genuine” postage stamps. When he came to sell, many fakes, repaired stamps, etc., were uncovered. Had he laid out far less case for facsimiles, sold for what they are, he would have had a more attractive, far cheaper collection, with more rarities. Instead of having to go begging now, he would still have his cash in the bank and could daily admire his facsimiles.” These were among some of the quotations from various issues of his “Le Fac-Simile” (Ragatz, 1970). His business grew very rapidly after 1907 until the beginning of World War I. He sent out sets on approval as well as individual reproductions. Most of them were attached to an approval page and affixed with gum arabic. To this day that is a telltale sign that it was Fournier’s forgery (Ragatz 1947). Fournier, however, refused to affix the word “facsimile” on the back of the forgery or hide the word carefully in his work of art as some other forgers did. He thought it would detract from the product. He also claimed that someone could erase the word and then sell the forgery as an original. At the same time his repair staff was busy removing the words “Specimen” from genuine government issued specimens of various countries. He didn’t see that this removal was the same as he claimed for the “facsimile” removal from his own forgeries. Business progressed at a steady pace between 1910 and 1914. He appointed agents all over the world to sell his wares. His lists of offering grew longer with time and his approval business was booming. In addition, his repair business guaranteed that his repaired stamps would defy detection. Practically any damaged stamp was accepted for repair. Business grew so rapidly until 1914 that only stamps of greater value were being accepted for repair. He charged 10% of the catalog value to repair those gems. Another specialty of the house was to remove pen cancels and then regum the stamp to make them appear as mint copies of impeccable quality. In 1913 Fournier claimed he had 10,000 customers for this approvals. A like amount was ordering from his catalog, and 2,500 were using his repair clinic, many of which were well known dealers (Ragatz, 1947). The outbreak of World War I in 1914 was the ruination of his business as many of the countries involved were suspicious of spy activities that might be sent through the mails with the “stamps”. It was difficult to send approvals of forgeries abroad even from his neutral offices and manufacturing plant on the 11 Rue de Rhone in Geneva, Switzerland. He was devastated because his business dropped off precipitously. He died in July 1917 and the business was taken over by a fellow worker, C.H. Hirschberger, who then struggled to keep the business going. Hirschberger died in 1927 and his widow placed everything on sale. The Philatelic Union of Geneva was the buyer of most of Fournier’s forgeries and tools, and in December 1927 began to organize these albums for distribution. The “Union” assembled the many forgeries and for the most part marked them individually with “Faux” or marked sheets “Facsimile” on the back side. They then produced 480 stem post albums of the many countries which were available. The albums were not well constructed as the screw posts that held the pages were weak and often too short to hold all the pages securely. All albums were not alike in their presentations of Fournier_s complete forgeries. Each album was given an official number. Albums of low numbers were the most complete collections and as certain issues “ran out” those issues were then absent in the high numbered albums. Forgeries were mounted with gum arabic on pages specially prepared that made a handsome book. These were sold to dealers and special collectors for about 25 dollars to recover costs of album preparations. The remainder of the forgeries were supposedly destroyed, but it was reported that numerous issues were still available throughout Europe long after the so called “destruction” (Eastwood, 1929). It has been over 70 years since the Philatelic Union of Geneva bought the “complete” collection of Fournier to remove all traces of his works from the market. The albums were prepared in a nine months’ period beginning December 1927. The purpose of organizing and collating his forgeries was two fold: one, to sell the albums to dealers in order to recover the costs involved in purchasing the “entire” collection, and secondly, to have these albums dispersed throughout the world so dealers would be aware of Fournier’s cunning in forging many of the stamps that they sold. The logic of the second reason “back fired” because many of these albums were soon dismantled and sold by the dealers to collectors specializing in a given country. These are still being offered to this day in auction catalogs. Of course, some dishonest dealers even sold individual forgeries as true copies. This is going on today because some dealers are not sophisticated enough in a given area of specialty to detect these Fournier forgers that they offer. I myself collect pre-1870 Switzerland, and I find Fournier forgeries of this time period being offered to me as true copies. It will take many published articles on forgeries to educate the dealers before this practice ceases. It is, of course, the collector’s responsibility to know what forgeries do exist on the market. As mentioned the “Union” had 480 albums prepared of which 100 were destined for the Americas and the remaining for Europe and the rest of the world. The cost at the time was 5 pounds sterling or about 25 dollars. According to Eastwood (1929), the price within 2 years had reached up to 25 pounds or about 125 dollars!. Today these albums if found intact bring thousands of dollars, because so few complete albums still exist. The “Union” undoubtedly recovered their costs, but it is believed there are some select portions of Fournier’s wares still being held in other hands. All albums were not alike because some specific forgeries were not available for albums with higher numbers. My own album which is number 295 probably contains less material than earlier editions when a great number of forgeries were still available to mount. The albums were prepared to hold only certain forgeries within chosen countries chosen by the “Union”. These albums also contain typical cancellations that Fournier made to cancel his own forgeries or those of authentic stamps. An example of the latter is shown in the Switzerland section where the granite paper issue of 1862 was designated obsolete by the government and later sold in post offices to collectors. This issue with the granite paper was not in use for long before being declared obsolete. As a consequence, true copies that were legitimately canceled have greater catalog value than those of mint copies. Fournier seized upon this price difference and canceled copies with his canceling devices (see Figures 8_1, 8_2, 8_3, and 8_4) and created a higher price stamp for those who know little or nothing of true cancellations. These in all albums have been marked FAUX by the “Union” to show that these copies really have false cancellations. The marking of most forgeries in the album are either FAUX on the face of the stamp or marked “Fac-Simile” on the reverse side. This was meant to be a deterrent to anyone trying to pass a forgery as a true stamp. According to Eastwood (1929) the FAUX could be removed or covered with a cancellation. After reading his Chapter 5 one might believe Eastwood to be a pessimist concerning the issuing of these albums by the “Union”. He was of the belief that in spite of the “Union” buying the Fournier collection, vast numbers of different Fournier forgeries, and copies of them, are still in control of some parties in Europe. On the other hand, Tyler (1991) cites an article that says, “The balance of the Fournier material was burned to ashes, on September 15, 1928 as certified by Louis Auguste Metral, official bailiff of the Canton of Geneva.” Before closing it might be instructive to mention that at the height of Fournier’s success (1910-1914) he published a house organ, beginning August 1910, entitled “Le Fac Simile”. Sample pages follow this section (see Figures 8_5, 8_6, 8_7, and 8_8). The subscription price was 3 Swiss francs per year and as many as 25,000 copies were issued at the peak! In these journals, Fournier in German, French, English, Spanish and Portuguese explained how to buy his wares or how to have authentic stamps repaired to “look like new”. Number 17 of the 1914 issue is considered the most desired since it had 64 pages and listed 3,671 forgeries at various prices in Swiss francs. A few of these prices of selected countries are illustrated herein. They are useful in knowing what he forged in any given country. He offered 305 sets from 94 countries. As an example, there were: 13 varieties of United States, Great Britain 62, Spain 86, Switzerland 49 and in German States all were covered. In addition, overprints on authentic stamps were offered amounting to 283 sets from 96 countries. At this writing only a few books that are intact still exist because dealers sold various countries to collectors of country specialties. The author has a series of Swiss pages taken from several albums (see Figures 8_9, 8_10, 8_11, 8_12, 8_13, 8_14, 8_15, 8_16, 8_17, 8_18, and 8_19). These pages of forgeries also include the Federals of 1850 (see Figures 8_20, 8_21, 8_22, 8_23, 8_24, 8_25, 8_26, 8_27, 8_28, and 8_x). The author is also fortunate enough to own a pristine album of number 295. Ragatz (1947) said he owned 15 copies of the album in the 1930’s when they were still available for as little as 50 dollars. In 1947 a “photo copy” book of number 165 was made which illustrates what was available for that particular number (Ragatz 1947). This reproduced book and my own “Union” collection (number 295) was used by the author to identify Fournier Swiss forgeries. Some appear to be those very excellent ones that might have won prizes in France in the 1890’s. Those could have been L. H. Mercier’s forgeries, but this is only a theory. However, this theory is now corroborated by Tyler (1991). Although Fournier has been dead for 80 years his forgeries still are in dealers’ stock books. The author has pointed this out to many dealers having Swiss stamps for sale. The usual reply is “We’ll look into the matter and see if the stamp you are looking at is truly a forgery”. It is hoped that this book will educate both dealers and collectors to the many forgeries still in collector’s and dealer’s stock books. It is of no importance to say “This actually came from Grandpa’s collection”. Forgeries of Fournier were and are now available for the last 130 years! Fournier’s forgeries not only appear in Swiss collections but in others as well. Halle (1979) wrote how Fournier’s forgeries still plagued stamp collectors of Germany. One can see why Francois Fournier was considered the master stamp forger of his time, and why his wares still plague the hobby today. At about the time the “Union” was ridding itself of Fournier’s forgeries via these 480 albums, another forger perhaps even more clever in his techniques than Fournier was now appearing on the scene. His name was Jean de Sperati; however that is another interesting story and all devoted stamp collectors should study his history which was well documented by the British Philatelic Association in a two volume book entitled “The work of Jean de Sperati”, 1955. A Selected Gallery of Fournier’s Wares These were photographed from two collections provided by L’Union Philatelique de Geneve. One was the author’s collection and the other loaned to me by the late Dr. Felix Ganz of Chicago. I will not distinguish between the two but one can see that pages vary depending on the issue number. See Figures 8_20 and 8_21 for differences in the Federals of 1850. I did not photograph my section of Switzerland from my entire Fournier collection of 295 since many forgeries are still the same as those shown here. Of course, two forgeries of the 2 Rp and 1 franc from Strubeli (imperforated sitting Helvetia) also appear in these collections. Many perforated sitting Helvetia of the granite paper variety are canceled with cancels of figure 8_1 and 8_2. By canceling these granite paper genuine stamps, Fournier provided a substantial rise in price of the stamps he sold. See the price list that follows Prices of Swiss Reproductions from Fournier’s 1914 Price List Prices are in Swiss Francs Lot Number No. of Items Price/Lot 270 Suisse 1843-48 (Geneve)5 centimes 7 4 271 " 1849 5 cts. de Vaud (choix extra) 1 2 272 " 1849-50 (Vaud et Neuchatel) 4 et 5 cent 3 1.50 273 " 1845 (Bale) 2-1/2 rap. (Colombe) 1 5 274 " 1845 (Bale) 2-1/2 rap. (Essai) 1 2 275 " 1843 (Zurich et Winterthur) 4 et 6 kr. et 2-1/2 r. 5 2.50 276 " 1850 (Crois encad. et non) Orts-Post) 2-1/2 rap. et (Poste locale) 2-1/2 4 2 277 " 1852 5, 10, 15, rapp. (croix encadr.) 4 3 278 " 1852 5, 10, 15, rapp. (non encadree) 4 3 279 " 1854 2 rappen et 1 franc 2 2 280 " 1881 2 c. au 1 fr. (auth. obl. fant.) 9 2 491 " 1850-52 5 rappen au 15 centimes 3 1.50 492 " 1862 3 cent. au 1 fr. (bronze) 4 1 493 " 1871 milit. franc. internes 1 0.50

Selected Translations Choix extra - extra choice Bale - Basel Colombe - Dove Bale Colombe Essia - Basel dove essay Croix encadr - cross framed non encadree - cross unframed auth. obl. - authentic cancellation Figure 8_1 and 8_2 are circular cancels produced by Fournier to cancel his forgeries of genuine granite paper stamps previously mentioned. Figures 8_3 and 8_4. Various static cancels of grids, bars, P.D. and P.D. varieties. Note the bird in 84. The author does not know if that is the very bird mentioned by Hunziker (1993). Figure 8_5. Terms of the Fournier Company as written in English in the 1944 price list. He also had these Terms written in French, German, Spanish and Portuguese to cover all major languages. Figure 8_6. The front page of his 1914 price list. Figure 8_7 and 8_8. An announcement of his sale of approvals and his offer of his clinic to repair stamps. This is also from the 1914 price list and all languages were used to attract collectors. Figure 8_9. Proofs and essays of his Basel Dove multiples of 12. Note the color difference between the 2 offered, the stamp and the essay. Figure 8_10. The Geneva eagles with a close-up of the double Geneve, 8_11; the large eagle, 8_12; and the small eagle 8_13. Figure 8_14 showing the 5 Neuchatel in a block of 4. In some collections this block of 4 appeared as a tete teche which was never printed in the case in true stamps. Figure 8_15 and 8_16. The 4 and 5 Vaud, respectively, shown as pairs. Figure 8_17. The top half of a page with the Zurich 4 and 6 which are quite believable forgeries at first glance and the rare Basel dove. Figure 8_18, the lower half of the previous page with the Geneva’s and the transitional stamps. Figure 8_19. The 5 Ct Neuchatel on piece with circular cancellation. Below on this same sheet is a sample of paper having horizontal or vertical red lines that would be used for the production of the Zurich 4 or 6 Rappen forgeries. Figure 8_20 and 8_21. The lower half of a page from the author’s collection and from Dr. Ganz’s collection. Note they are similar in many ways but individual Federals forgeries vary slightly. Figure 8_22 and 8_23. A close-up of the Federals from Dr. Ganz’s collection. Figure 8_24. A close-up of the forgeries which Mr. Mercier probably produced. These are excellent and get a high rating in Chapter 6. From the author’s collection. Figure 8_25. Another version of a Poste Locale with fine lines. Figure 8_26. A forgery similar to Figure RIII_1c with large 15. This is an excellent forgery that is still in the stock books of dealers. Figure 8_27. A close-up of a dark blue Rayon I. Figure 8_28. A set of 4 proofs of Poste Locale and Orts-Post. These were the background for his forgeries of the Federals. Note that the cutting lines do not cross, and this transferred to his forgeries. As mentioned, there are Fournier forgeries of the sitting Helvetia and one is shown in Figure 8_29. Very often these were taken out of collections and sold. The author wrote an article on this forgery describing the forgery’s faults. This appears in the American Philatelic Society publication of The American Philatelist, Vol. 99, No. 7, pp. 613-64, July 19, 1985. Other Stamp Forgers of the Swiss Federal Administration Issues The following short biographies of forgers is based mainly on the findings in Varro Tyler’s book “Philately Forger” (1991). Mr. Tyler conducted an excellent research study with the literature he had available. Since the book is readily available, there is no need to repeat much of what he has already written. My comments will be only brief. I will only mention those forgers who forged Swiss stamps of all types.

Adrien Champion Adrien Champion was born in Geneva in 1867. He attended college in the vicinity and noted students buying or trading postage stamps for collections. He soon became a dealer of sorts with his two younger brothers. Tyler (1991) has further accounts of his career that took him to England to sell stamps under an alias name of Henri Bauche. Some of the forgeries that he sold were those of Venturini of Turin, Italy. His life was devious and to say the least, interesting.

Louis-Henry Mercier Mercier began his forgery business in Geneva in 1890. He was established as Henrie Goegg which was his birth name. He prided himself as being a perfectionist in making Swiss stamp reproductions that would deceive most experts. His reproductions which were all canceled included the 4 and 5 cent Vaud, the Basel Dove and 5 Rayons. These Rayons are what I believe to be the ones that won so many honors in France. See the section on Fournier where these honors are attributed to him because these were in the Fournier collection prepared by L’Union Philatelique de Geneve. These very reproductions are the first ones cited by the author in Chapter 6. He was in business under his birth name until 1893 and he then changed his name to Louis-Henri Mercier. His business was not doing well and he went into bankruptcy. At this time Francois Fournier bought his stock (Tyler 1991). Fournier seized upon the idea of advertising how his reproductions (works of art) won many awards. Mercier’s early forgeries were the original reproductions which became the backbone of Fournier’s success.

Erasmus Oneglia This forger began in Turin, Italy and perhaps influenced a number of Italian forgers in the late 1890’s. In 1897 he was arrested in England for trying to sell forgeries. He was fined one pound sterling and his wares were confiscated (Tyler, 1991). He produced photo lithographs of the early Swiss stamps. A forger named Edoardo Spiotti must have purchased forgeries from Oneglia as they both had similar price lists (Tyler 1991). Oneglia offered a catalog of 8 pages of imitations of postage stamps, 1897-98 from his office in Turin, Italy. It was speculated that even Jean de Sperati learned forging techniques from Oneglia while Sperati was in Turin (Tyler 1991).

Angelo Panelli He was born in 1887 and had a stamp forgery business in San Remo, Italy (Tyler, 1991). Evidently he forged the Federal issue of Switzerland as he offered the 5, 10 and 15 Rappen to a client in 1928 (Tyler, 1991). His history is interesting and the literature attributed to him is large (Tyler, 1991).

Julius Schlesinger Schlesinger was a German dealer of stamps in 1870 and his long career ended in 1920. He became an expert in many European stamps and his mark is backstamped as “J. Schl.”. Because of some of his doubtful expertizing some persons assigned “J. Schl” as “ist schlect” (It is bad) (Tyler, 1991). It is not known whether Schlesinger tampered with Swiss stamps as he did with Greek classics, but the author has a cover which bears his “J. Schl.” hand stamp. The cover was purchased in San Francisco from a very reliable dealer for $50. The cover had a pair of light blue Rayon I stamps complete with fully framed crosses (Figure 9_1). We both knew what I was buying when he offered the cover to me. He knew it was a “beautiful” forgery and I had to have it for my collection. Close examination revealed that the pair was type 19 and 20 on the “C” stone. It was impossible for that pair to have true framed crosses from the “C” stone. On the right stamp at the lower right is stamped “J. Schl.”, on the backside. Did he do framing of the cross or was he duped into believing it was not a fake?

Had the two stamps been left as a beautiful fully marginal pair on cover, the cover would be worth 10 times what I had paid. This is one of my interesting adventures of stamp collecting.

The Spiro Brothers These forgers from Bremen, Germany, took advantage of a stamp craze in the 1860’s when philately was in its infancy. The Spiro Brothers used the lithographic process to print beer labels and other useful items, but were enamored with making forgeries of stamps for collectors. Usually stamp reproductions were made in sheets of 5 x 5. Many were canceled as shown in Figure 9_2. Although the Federal issue of Switzerland was one of their marks, these forgeries left much to be desired. One can always identify them by the constant ground line above “Rayon” or Orts-Post as shown in Figure 9_3. Their Cantonals may have been better than the Federals but they had large flaws as well. Although the author is not a collector of other countries, he has been told that the Republic of South African forgeries were very well done for accuracy. They too were produced in sheets of 25. Many of their complete sheets of all countries still are intact to this day. By mid-1860’s the Spiro Brothers flooded the philatelic market with their forgeries. The Spud Papers were started in a British publication “The Philatelist” to stop this “flood”. This lasted for a decade from 1871. These Spud Papers contained forgeries mostly of the Spiro brothers. The publication must have been a success as the Spiro Brothers ceased to make forgeries after 1880 (Tyler, 1991).

A. Verturini Venturini was a forger that used the photolithographic process for manufacturing his reproductions at the turn of the last century (Crafer, 1902). That issue of the Stamp Collectors’ Fortnightly gave him the distinction of being the King of the forgers! In Swiss reproductions he produced the Vaud 4 and 5 cent, Winterthur 2-1/2, Neuchatel 5 cent, and the Zurich 4 Rp. De Reuterskiold (1907) was able to identify most of those in his publication of The Forgeries of the Cantonal Stamps, Switzerland. Venturini had many addresses in Italy, but Florence was his main address in 1902 (Tyler, 1991). Many of his business dealings were with another forger, Erasmus Oneglia of Turin. Venturini printed the stamps and Oneglia finished the reproductions for sale (Tyler, 1991).

Peter Winter One of the most recent forgers is Dr. Peter Winter of Bremen, Germany. He obtained colored transparency photos from the Thomas K. Tapling collection in the British Museum, London. These photos were to be used for research; however, they were used to make reproductions of those stamp photos. Mr. David Beech, head of the stamp collection section, told me that if he had known the photos would be used to reproduce forgeries, the request for photos would not have been granted. Dr. Winter used Swiss and USA photos frequently in his line of forgeries. See Appendix C for details concerning the issues of Swiss forgeries produced by Dr. Winter under the company name of Pro-Phil Forum. These forgeries were a topic of current discussion at the 1990 “International Stamp World 90” in London (Lewy, 1990). These forgeries were marketed by the House of Stamps in Switzerland. This company offered stamp forgeries to non-residents of Switzerland only (Lewy, 1990). The forgeries had “Faux” or “Falsch” in minute letters hidden somewhere on the forgery. On the reverse side the company printed “Replik”. Lewy (1990) reported that a large amount of these forgeries were found in Bonn, Germany, with the word “Replik” removed. Some of the forgeries must still be around in collections, but the bulk were returned to the British Library for disposal, see Appendix C for other comments on Winter’s forgeries. The author was able to see the entire Swiss collection of these Pro-Phil Forum forgeries in the British Museum, and frankly they were not nearly as convincing as the excellent forgeries of Jean de Sperati. The above are my experiences with the Pro-Phil Forum forgeries. More details and literature citations may be had by checking the writings of Varro Tyler (1991).