Bosnia & Herzegovina #1 Type II

[Edo_Rajh]

I wonder to what "Type II" refers? How many types there are for Bosnia & Herzegovina #1?

Thanks for any help.

Edo

[Tim_Balm]

Edo,

For me, I tell the difference by the bottom bird in the shield - Type II has a diagonal line in the bird, type I has no line.  This is directly from the Scott catalog...

"Type I - The heraldic eagles on the right side of the escutcheon are entirely blank.  The eye of the lion is indicated by a very small dot, which sometimes fails to print."

"Type II - There is a colored line across the lowest eaglet.  A similar line sometimes appears on the middle eaglet.  The eye of the lion is formed by a large dot which touches the outline of the head above it."

Hope this helps.

Tim

[Edo_Rajh]

Again, thanks Tim!

This helps a lot.

Edo

[numones]

I am puzzling over a stamp to correctly identify it as Bosnia & Herzegovina #1 or #1a.  I did not find anything about it in Album Weeds.  The Serrane Guide has a paragraph but it does not clear up the question very much.  It says only that the lithographed examples were produced at the end of 1894 and the typographed in 1895.  Scott catalog, quoted by Tim on February 16, 2004, seems to have the most information, but even it is not conclusive.   So I came to the web site to see if the subject had been under discussion here before and found this.

Both #1 and #1a should be Type II according to Scott.  Type II should have a line across the lowest heraldic eaglet on the right side of the shield.  The stamp I am identifying does not have a line that goes all the way across, but it does have what could be the beginning of the line starting from between the head and the left wing and going about half way across the eaglet.  I have 5 other examples in hand to compare.  One of the 5 does exactly this same thing.  On the other 4 the line goes all the way across the eaglet. 

Also, on Type II the eye of the lion should be large and touch the outline of the head.  On my new stamp it does not touch the outline of the head.  On my 5 other examples, 2 of the eyes are buried under a cancel.  The other 3 could be said to touch.  This touching is not so close as to be the circumference of the eye touching, but some ink outside the circumference of the eye does touch.  I think these characteristics must be progressive as the stamps were printed.

The other thing Scott mentions under Other Varieties, 1/2 Novcica, "There is a black dot between the curved ends of the ornaments near the lower spandrels. 

G  --  This dot touches the curve at its right.  Stamps of this (1st) printing are Litho.  (my note - this would be #1.)

H  --  This dot stands clear of the curved lines.  Stamps of this (2nd) printing are typo.  (my note - this would be #1a.)

Using this test, my new stamp is a #1a.  The dot stands clear.

Checking my 5 other examples, I have 2 where the dot touches the curved lines (#1), and 3 where the dot stands clear (#1a). 

This "dot" test seems, to me, to be the most useful. 

Does any body know how to distinguish the difference between lithographed and typographed  printing in some other way.  On my 6 examples, the typographed seems to be a little sharper than the litho'ed, but the difference does not seem to be pronounced enough to make a determination based on that alone. 

[Jesper]

Printing methods are described here:
http://www.1840on.co.uk/HELP%20ABOUT%20PHILATELIC%20STAMP%20PRINTING.HTM

[Tim_Balm]

I am puzzling over a stamp to correctly identify it as Bosnia & Herzegovina #1 or #1a.

[numones]

Thanks, Jesper.  Frank Mardle has a very interesting site.  But, I find it really hard to learn (anything) by reading alone.  Studying my 6 stamps, and trying to compare them to the info on Frank's web site, I still can't really tell the difference between the typo'ed and the litho'ed.  I think I need a tutor.   

[numones]

Tim,

I am not sure about calling it "definitive", but for now I am thinking of the dot test as the best test to tell the difference between the printings.  (At least until better info comes along). 

Litho'ed (#1) the dot touches.  Typo'ed (#1a) the dot stands clear.

It's true, #1 is the only type II stamp in the litho-ed set.  All of the rest (#2 to #10) are type I. 

I think it is also true that both #1 (litho-ed, 1st printing) and #1a, (typo-ed, 2nd printing) are all type II stamps (line across the lowest eaglet and big eye on the lion).  So we need a sure way to tell the difference between the two printings.  For now I am thinking the dot test is best.

All 5 of the copies I had before, both #1 and #1a, are perf 10.5.  This new stamp that got me into this thing is perf 12.5.  Should we be reading the Scott catalog to be saying that all of the perf 12.5 stamps are reprints of 1911?

Any new info from Billig?

 



     

[numones]

I have found a Bosnia & Herzegovina #2 in my stock. 

It is type I, small eye on the lion and no line at all on the lowest eaglet.  The small eye on this #2 and the large eye on all of my #1's and #1a's is very plain when viewed side by side.  This eye on #2 is tiny.  At least, that question is cleared up in my mind.

The dot between the curved lines near the lower spandrel stands clear.  That should make this #2 typo'ed, 2nd printing. 

But, according to my former reasoning of a few minutes ago, that should not be possible.  All of the typo'ed, 2nd printing should be type II (big eye on the lion and line across the lowest eaglet).  Oh, no.  We're in trouble.  What was so clear a few minutes ago has gotten muddy again. 

We need a better test to separate the litho'ed from the typo'ed. 

[numones]

The Bosnia & Herzegovina #2 mentioned above is perf 11.5.

[Tim_Balm]

Dave,  I may submit a couple of separate posts as I'll reply to questions separately...

First, Billig does not add much additional.  I quote...

"Plate I.  The printing was made in lithography.  The lion's eye in the left part of the shield is a dot, which does not touch any part of the oputlines of the head.  It is very indistinct.  The three ealges in the right part of the shield are white and without any shading."  [There are also a couple of add'l comments re the 2Kr , 10Kr and 15Kr issues.]

"Plate II.  The printing was made in typography.  The lion's eye is a thick dot, it is connected with the forehead of the lion.  The two lower ealges in the right part of the shield are not neatly printed."  [Again, there are a couple of add'l comments re the 2Kr  and 10Kr issues.]

Billig also discusses the "Originals" versus the "Reprints".  Nothing more than what is in Scott.

Regarding the perf 12.5 aspect of the reprints.  I believe all reprints must be perf 12.5, but not all 12.5 stamps are reprints.  Rationale:  In my set of Sc#1-10 (lith type issues), the 10Kr (Sc#6) is perf 12.5 - and the ealgets are definitely blank and the lion has a small/virtually nonexistent eye.  Since all reprints are type II, my perf 12.5 type I Sc#6 not a reprint.

Tim

[Tim_Balm]

Dave,

I have 3 copies of #1/1a in my collection.

Copy A: Used.  Perf 10.5.  Lower eaglet has full line going from left of head to right of tail.  Large eye.  Dots by lower spandrels touch the ornaments.  I believe this to be Sc#1.

Copy B: Mint.  Perf 10.5.  Lower eaglet has full line going from left of head to right of tail.  Large eye.  Dots by lower spandrels are clear of ornaments.  I believe this to be Sc#1a.

Copy C: Used.  Perf 10.5.  Lower eaglet has a half line going from left of head to center of body.  Large eye.  Dots by lower spandrels are clear of ornaments.  I believe this to be Sc#1a.

From this, I believe the "dot test" is the strongest calssifier for #1 versus #1a.  Note that my copies B and C differ in the extent of the line, but the dot test indicates both are #1a.

I will make 1 more post regarding your observations on a Sc#2.

Tim

[Tim_Balm]

I have found a Bosnia & Herzegovina #2 in my stock.

[Tim_Balm]

One final "summary" post of my opinions...

The "dot test" that Scott describes for differentiating between litho and typo appears to be the best test for determining #1 versus #1a.

[numones]

Tim,

I think your summary fairly states a reasonable conclusion to this discussion. 

The only question I am left with now, Is my new #1a, perf 12.5 an original or a reprint?