Catalogue Notes

Most dealers and collectors of Jammu & Kashmir follow the Stanley Gibbons listing. While recognizing that it is is not meant to be a specialist treatment, one may still fret when truly disparate fare must crowd into a single entry of the catalogue. Each number really serves as a tag for a family of types that may have been produced over years or indeed even at different printing sites.

Above: A sampling of the many ‘red thin woves’ that will be assigned to SG125. They range from earlier Jammu printings to later Srinagar printings, with some types unattested in postal use. The rarity of a certain paper variety or the postal status of another cannot be learned from the catalogue. We do appreciate the plight of the cataloguer.

Changes to the SG Listing

SG 2013: Pending.

SG 2012: No changes apart from upward pricing.

SG 2011: Yet another vagary of handstamping is now recognized at 29a. Upward pricing continues.

SG 2010: No changes apart from upward pricing.

SG 2009: No changes apart from upward pricing.

SG 2008: Added to the listing are four new entries: 90a, 99b, 127a, 132a. The 127a is a long-known Leh-bisect cover, namely a 1a red that augments the ½a red already listed, both stamps being of the Jammu-printed period. The 132a is another, namely a ½a orange, which augments the 1a orange already listed, both stamps being of the Srinagar-printed period. The other two entries are handstamping anomalies.

SG 2007: No changes apart from upward pricing.

SG 2006: The 1a royal blue circular SG3 is now unpriced in unused condition. Upward pricing is again the story.

SG 2005: No changes apart from upward pricing. Some interesting catalogue notes about the Jammu Circulars can be found in Peter Röver India Post 39, 32 (2005).

SG 2004: A few more numbers have been re-re-assigned for the early period. A 4a royal blue watercolor circular has been recognized, unpriced. We do not know what has counted as ‘royal blue’ here. Pending inspection of the item in question, some of us with definite notions about this matter will remain skeptical.

SG 2003 Edition: Several of the catalogue numbers for the early period circulars have been changed from the 2002 edition. A reshuffling of the “Jammu Reds” has been undertaken, with changes in number, dates, and prices. An old slip whereby Jammu Old Rectangular reds are dated only from 1876 has been corrected. A concordance follows for those who deal with older auction literature and so on.

• In the footnote referring to circular forgeries of the “½a and 1a in types which were at one time supposed to be authentic,” the 1a should be changed to 4a. The errant footnote dates from long ago when the legitimage 4a die was indeed mistaken for the 1a and vice-versa. The irony is that it was the very existence of these forgeries that fostered these mistaken assignments in the first place.

• There are continuing dating difficulties, some more significant than others: The dating at SG88 should “read 1866 (Sept(?)),” just as it does at SG87, whence the received scenario about both issues is modified considerably. The single die was not really superseded by the plate issue in the ½a black, for both shared a curious partnership over essentially the same life-span of several months, all of them ending sometime in the spring of 1867.

Scott vs. Gibbons (ca. 2003)

The Watercolor Circulars: Rare ½a circulars in any sort of blue are missing in Scott, a major lapse. Gibbons does recognize half-anna blues in both used and unused condition. Were it not for Boggs’ having mistaken a ½a dull blue for the 1a denomination in his notes on Haverbeck Lot 1239, there is little doubt that Scott would have recognized the type long ago, at least in the duller shade. As for the two higher denominations, Scott recognizes an ultramarine vs. a dull blue distinction that SG does not make. While the 1a dull blue might be partly an artifact of Boggs’ mistake, it is still a viable listing in the 1a. If it is desirable in a non-specialist catalogue to distinguish the early 1a royal blue from the subsequent stages of the ultramarine series, then many other sharper shade distinctions throughout the listing should also be recognized.

Winthrop Boggs and Harrison Haverbeck on the American scene enabled Scott to assign the right circular die to the right denomination some four decades before SG. Unfortunately, the footnote caution about the Die A forgery in Scott (Die I in SG) has not yet been corrected in either catalog (catalogue). Michel Katalog? Nicht besser. As of 2003 the old illustration that matches symbols with denominations is still reversed. But do not reverse 1a and 4a in the stamp listing itself, for these are correct as given.

Unsurprisingly, Scott does not recognize a counterpart to SG’s 4a royal-blue.

Scott recognizes a ½a orange circular (Scott 26a) at moderate price that SG does not list. On the other hand, Scott does not recognize the 1a orange. Dawson’s note on the latter can be found in Phil. J. India 48 p 66 (1944).

The 4a deep blue-black watercolor circular of 1876 (SG25a) is called indigo in the Scott catalog, and not to be taken for the early 4a indigo Sc4b (SG7).

The Kashmir Watercolors. Scott is still not listing the early printings of the 4a rectangular die in myrtle-green and sage-green, both well-attested in postal use, and which themselves are known in sub-shades.

The Transitional Oilcolors. The treatment of the Jammu rectangulars, both water and oil, is essentially identical in the two listings (datings and pricings aside). SG lists the rare deep blue-black entity that Scott does not, and which may be, following Eames, a pigment-mixing variety of the slate-blue itself. The 4a slate-blue oilcolor circular is recognized by SG only. A typo at Sc22 lists the ½a as a ¼a.

The New Rectangulars. It is a pleasure to see in Scott the perforated ½a red on wove paper listed with the laid papers of 1878. Unfortunately medium-thick woves are not distinguished from thin woves at all. Among the the early laids, Scott’s 1a violet and 1a dull purple must somehow serve as counterparts to SG’s 1a mauve and 1a slate purple. For Scott’s 2a bright violet on laid, SG distinguishes a 2a violet (listing this also in rare perforated condition) from a bright mauve, and adds a slate-blue. The rare 2a dull blue in SG is called dull ultramarine in Scott.

Among the New Colors, concordances among the different shade listings cannot really be carried out meaningfully, and small price differentials among the types are all but meaningless.

The Officials. SG lists the 1878 1a black on medium wove paper, which, like the other medium woves, is not distinguished from thins in the Scott listing. The 1889 ¼a black on stout wove paper is also unlisted in Scott. There is sporadic conjecture that it was not a legitimate issue. It is usually found with a thick-barred postmark that is not known postally, but which is reported on other dodgy material.

Michel

The 2003 Michel Süd- und Südostasien Übersee-Katalog. Volume 8, pp 404-07.

For Michel’s watercolor blau und dunkelblau in the early circular issues, identify SG royal blue and indigo, respectively. In the Jammu Old Rectangulars, Michel’s lilarot corresponds to SG red (shades) entry. Michel’s rot and orangerot then correspond to SG orange-red and orange, respectively, all of which just adds more noise to an already noisy story. In the oilcolors, by contrast, rot does indeed correspond to SG red. The schieferblau translates SG slate-blue.

Where Michel speaks of grün in the circulars and smaragd in the Jammu Old Rectangulars, SG has emerald-green for both. Similarly, where Michel speaks of violettblau bis ultramarin in the circulars und hellblau in the Jammu Old Rectangulars, SG has bright blue for both. The SG account reflects the pigment sharing that was likely the case here, though it is true that the bright blues do come in shades.

Editorial

Speaking of pricing: Well, we weren’t, but let’s for a moment. A recent trend in the catalogue, and presumably in the market, is the sharp upward valuation of pairs of handstamped impressions that are in near-opposite alignment. In 2012 the total catalogue value of eight of these so-called tête-bêche and semi-tête-bêche pairings, which are of scant philatelic import, now amounts to over £28,000. This was just handstamping, after all, and done by parties not exactly renowned for their fastidiousness. We are surely not alone in our bewilderment at the pricing premium, especially when truly errant fare (such as mirror-image impressions that actually passed through the mails) goes unrecognized altogether. It was good to see that the catalogue abandoned formal recognition of so-called “double impressions” (strike bounces) in the early watercolors.

The matter of under-valuation is likely to be of more interest to most of us. I know that many collectors would be loath to let go of certain of their middle-range material at current catalogue prices. A good copy of Old Myrtle at only £1000? No, but we’d be delighted to lay down that sum for another one any day.     —CvdL

To top of page