![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/stampsofarmenia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/5824.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe overprint looks good. However, very good forgeries of this overprint exist and further study with the stamp itself is necessary.<\/p>\n
Again the overprint looks not bad. However, further study is necessary.<\/p>\n That is an easy to detect forgery. The ink is wrong and the shape is in mismatch with the genuine one (foot is not even).<\/p>\n Both overprints look good. All characteristics of the genuine overprint are present.<\/p>\n Again a forgery. The signature “UZ” – which is in fact Armenian script – is almost always a sign of a forgery. Shape and color of the “4” are wrong. The round end on the left side of the “4” is the most prominent giveaway in this case.<\/p>\n Looks not bad, but is a difficult overprint. Further study necessary.<\/p>\n This is interesting. The left overprint looks good (shape and ink) while the right one looks really bad. The bluish ink is a sign of the forgery!<\/p>\n I cannot say anything here, because the overprint is not clearly visible.<\/p>\n This is almost certainly a forgery. The “0” of the genuine overprint has breaks at the top and at the foot – which are missing here and the ink is too weak. However there is some variation within the genuine overprint. When it is not possible to decide if an overprint is genuine – its the same as with an clearly faked one. Its not a good stamp, that a collector can insert into his collection.<\/p>\n Thats an interesting one. Following the literature of Tchilingarian and Ceresa one must decide that this is a fake. However, in the Artar Catalogue this one is listed as genuine. Since I have not seen a genuine overprint of this type one a genuine cover or even with a genuine cancel – it is still a forgery for me. I will get in touch with the author of the catalog in order to learn, why he thinks this one is genuine.<\/p>\n An obvious forgery. The “0” is too round and uneven and the ink is wrong. The most common forgery of the 50k overprint.<\/p>\n This looks like the genuine overprint. A pity the stamp is damaged<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" All these stamps were offered by the same seller. It is interesting to see that the same house mark (J. & R. STOLOW) – which is NOT an expertizing mark – is on stamps with genuine looking overprints as well … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n