Foochow 1903

Copyright 1938 by H. F. Bowker. All rights reserved. Reproduction or use, without express permission, in any manner is prohibited.

Having seen dubious examples of what are purported to be specimens of the half of the 2-cent scarlet of China, used as a 1-cent stamp in FOOCHOW on the 22d, 23d, and 24th of October 1903 (Scott's number 88), from the foremost collections of Chinese stamps in the exhibition at an annual convention of the largest American philatelic society; having received equally questionable copies on approval from many of the principal American and foreign dealers; and any number from stamp auctions, among which were several fakes with "guarantees"by a former "Official Counterfeit Detector", it has seemed an appropriate time to present a few notes on my studies of this stamp which are based upon a half-dozen years of interest and critical examination of scores of copies.

Practically all authorities and editors of catalogs agree that these bisects were used only on the dates stated above. There is, however, no unanimity of opinion expressed as to the relative scarcity of the various dates, and in my opinion the published statements that the first date is commonest and the last date the scarcest, are based upon a false premise. It has been my observation that fakes dated the 22d are very common, but the same cannot be said of genuine examples. As this issue was of an emergency nature, made without any advance notice to the general public, the number of letters posted on the first day were obviously only those required by the ordinary business of the day. The same might not be true of the other dates, as there had then been allowed sufficient time for interested individuals to post any covers that may have been required for philatelic purposes. It is suggested that practically no "philatelic covers"were posted during the three days of use, as the whole affair took place prior to any general interest in stamps on entire covers. This point, however, is of purely academic interest as any of the dates, genuinely used, are of sufficient rarity to make them very desirable property.
 
For a number of years I have been telling collectors of Chinese stamps that these items were worth $50 each, during which time they were being cataloged at about $8. I now see that my predictions have been fulfilled by the sale in London in October 1937 of lot 604 of the Finegan collection for that amount.

Theodore Siddall, in the 2d edition of his Catalogue of Chinese Stamps, states that "nine out of ten in the market are forgeries", but I believe he has understated the case; and I find that he published an illustration in the 3d edition of his catalog of what will be shown herein to be a fake. Several years ago Michael Miller, in his series of articles on "Splits" in the American Philatelist examination as to its authenticity. The illustration in the catalog of the Stephens Stamp Co.of Shanghai is also of a forgery.

The only example of the genuine surcharge and cancellation which is readily accessible to the general collector is in Gibbons Catalog. If there are any others published they have escaped my attention.

It has been claimed that there was no legitimate reason for the use of the bisected stamps, and that the inland rate for letters in 1903 was not 1-cent. This is incorrect, for while I have not been able to determine from official sources the dates between which the 1-cent rate was in effect, I have a number of entire covers of the period showing that rate for inland letters. Figure 1 is an example of a sealed letter carried from Luan Chow (Anhwei) to Lu Chowfu (Szechuan), cities about a thousand miles apart, in October 1903. It is backstamped 10 OCT 1903, but this date may be an error, as the sender has endorsed on the face of the envelope what appears to be the date of mailing, "10/26/1903", so that it seems more probable that the letter arrived at its destination on 10 November 1903. These inconsistencies are quite common on Chinese covers even today, due no doubt to the incomplete understanding of the abbreviations of the English names for the months of the year by the Chinese postal clerks.

Figure 1 Inland letter showing 1-cent rate in October 1903

Several genuine examples of these provisionals will first be described. From these the various salient points by which the genuineness of any FOOCHOW split may be judged, will be made understandable.

The finest example of an entire cover dated the 22d of October 1903 which has come to my attention, is in the collection of James Starr of Philadelphia (Figure 2). Addressed to "Capt. J. H. G. Garver, H. B. M's Surveyor, British Consulate, Shanghai,"with the printed return address of "BROCKETT & Co. FOOCHOW"on the flap of the envelop, it is backstamped "Shanghai Local Post H OC 25 03"within the customary doublelined circle of the common local postmark. The envelope is made of white bond paper, 149 mm. By 85 mm., watermarked diagonally "HOWARD & JONES LONDON"in double-lined block letters 7/16 high, manufactured by "Howard & Jones, Manufacturers 16, Cullum St.London", as evidenced by the colorless embossed lettering on the back of the envelope. The impression of both the surcharging chop and cancellation are gray-black. The piece of the stamp used is the lower left half.

The only genuine example of an entire cover used on the 23d of October, other than the Chinese-type cover described later in this article, that I have seen is in my own collection (Figure 3). It is addressed to "F.Siemssen,Esqre. I(mperial) M(aritime) Customs, Chinkiang."Across the top of the front of the gray envelope, measuring 164mm. by 95mm., is the return card of the sender,"TokmakoffMolotkoff & Co. Foochow, China"in Russian, and on the back flap is an impression in purple ink of an oval rubber stamp with the same firm's name in English and Russian and two Chinese characters, probably the Chinese hong name of the company. The cover is backstamped "CHI NK IANG 2 NOV 03." The stamp is also placed fortuitously and is the lower left-hand section. The surcharging chop and cancellation are both gray-black.

Figure 3 Second day cover, 23 OCT 03

The best example I have seen of the third and last day's use, 24 October 1903, was purchased in London (Figure 4). It is a common buff wove-paper envelope without any particular identifying characteristics, 150mm. by 87mm., addressed to "A.S. Watson & Co., Limited, Amoy." It is backstamped "AMOY 26 OCT 03."The surcharging chop and cancellation are also gray-black, and the stamp is the upper right-hand section. I have a second example of this date on a white envelope, 94mm. by 67mm., with a colorless embossed impression "Custom House,Foochow" on the flap, addressed to "Sing Mi Sing, Esq. Customs, Santuao."It is backstamped in that city on the 26th of October 1903. The impression of the surcharging chop and cancellation are gray-black, and the stamp is the lower left-hand section. Mr. Starr has an excellent specimen of this day's usage, addressed to "Herren Pasedag& Co. Amoy." The stamp is the upper right-hand section. The envelope is of dark blue paper with a large watermark showing a figure of Britannia seated within an oval 150mm, by 83mm, surmounted by an elaborate crown, and with single diagonal lines 26 mmapart running thru the whole design, and closely laid lines 1 1/2 mm apart at right angles thereto. The envelope's backflap has the firm name of "Siemssen&Krohn, Foochow"printed thereon. The cover is backstamped "AMOY 26 OCT 03." At the left-hand edge of the face of the envelope is the name of the addressee in hsingshu characters. The stamp is also the upper right-hand section.

Figure 4 Third and last day cover, 24 OCT 03

Criteria

A study of the signal characteristics of the above-described covers, as well as many others, enables one to determine that in order to be considered genuine a specimen should have most of the following features:

1. Color of the stamp section must be scarlet, not red.

2. Stamp section should be the upper right or lower left-hand section.

3. Cover must be addressed to a point outside of FOOCHOW.

4. Cover should be backstamped conforming to the address, with correct interval between date of posting and date of arrival at destination.

5. FOOCHOW postmark and oblong surcharging chop must be grayish black, not black.

6. Stamp section should be applied at random on the envelope, with postmark adjacent thereto and not necessarily impinging upon the oblong chop or stamp section.

7. Envelope should have some sort of characteristic identifying it with FOOCHOW, such as the printed return card of the sender.

8. Dealers' "guaranteemarks" should be considered of value only insofar as they identify the source of supply, as they are in the case of this particular item of no other significance.

Discussion

The reasons for stressing these characteristics will now be discussed.

1. The scarlet shade was current at this period, being the shade of the earlier shipments of this stamp. The 2-cent stamps were later issued in darker shades of red, and the many fakes on the market are almost invariably made from these darker shades.

2. It appears that the stamp clerk or clerks who handled the outgoing mail in FOOCHOW on the dates under discussion, cut up the sheets of stamps by cutting diagonally across the face of the sheets from the lower right-hand corner to the upper lefthand corner. This method of separation caused the half-stamps to be in strips with alternately an upper right-hand and a lower left-hand section. Once this method of cutting up a sheet was started it was impossible to reverse the direction without loss of stamps, and no sections composed of the lower right-hand and upper left-hand parts of the stamps resulted. This inference is drawn from the fact that I have never seen a single genuine example of either of the latter sections, although many fakes made from these sections have been seen. It would seem that the fakes were prepared from used copies of the 2-cent stamps which did not happen to have cancellations on one half of the stamps, so that they are to be found made from any of the four possible bisections, upper right-, upper left-, lower right- or lower left-hand. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am of the belief that all splits with the lower right- and upper left-hand sections are fakes.

3. The local rate was 1/2 cent, consequently there was no point to paying the 1-cent rate for mail addressed to local addresses. Therefore, the many covers addressed to FOOCHOW addresses are fakes. This conclusion is succinctly stated in this manner only as a ready means of eliminating at once the most obvious fakes which are commonest. Further on in this study additional demonstration of this fact will be given.

4. The reasons for this statement are too obvious to need discussion.

5. All genuinely used examples of this split which have been seen had both the surcharging chop and the cancellation impressed with grayish black ink. The fake cancellations and surcharging chops were always stamped heavily with black ink.

6. It has been noted that most of the covers which it has been possible to establish as genuine have the stamp sections applied at random. The only specimens which have been seen which have the stamp sections and surcharging chops placed in an orderly manner are those mentioned above addressed to Herren Pasedag & Co. and Figure 2, from Mr Starr's collection. This combination is so rare that it may be considered accidental.

7. All of the fakes on entire covers which have examined were entirely without any markings identifying them with the city of their purported origin. Most of the genuine covers examined originated with firms in business in FOOCHOW, and as is customary there as elsewhere, they had their envelopes endorsed with their return cards.

8. As the state of knowledge of this interesting split, as evidenced by the printed record in philatelic publications, is very meager, and because of the rarity of the genuine and the abundance of the fakes, dealers everywhere have apparently taken the easiest way and have guaranteed that which came into their possession. This condition has been so prevalent that in consequence dealers’ guarantee marks, with regard to this particular stamp, have been found to be without value, and collectors are accordingly cautioned to disregard such, excepting insofar as they may be of value in securing refunds for fakes sold as the genuine. Of course the presence of guaranty marks should not in themselves be considered a defect if one can otherwise substantiate the genuineness of the specimen, but its presence is no guaranty of genuineness.

Several years ago I was favored with a private view of what was generally believed at that time to be the foremost American collection of Chinese stamps, and was furnished with photostats of the entire section devoted to the FOOCHOW splits. A critical study disclosed that only two specimens, both on entries, were genuine. The balance of about a dozen specimens on entries and pieces of covers were all fakes. The stamp collection in the Smithsonian Institution at Washington, was examined and the only specimen on display was an obvious fake of the commonest sort. The Curator, Mrs. Manning, stated when her attention was called to this, that it would be withdrawn from exhibition.

I have seen only one genuine example of a FOOCHOW split on a Chinese type envelope with the address in Chinese characters. It was from the collection of Mr. Scheible, formerly of Shanghai, and was sold by J.C. Morgenthau & Co. of New York as lot 255 of their 260th sale. It was described in the catalog as follows: "1903 1 c on Half 2 c scarlet (88), used on original which was cancelled Foochow Oct. 23, and receiving stamp Tientsin Nov. 5, 1903, very rare in this shape and not in the same class as August 1904 bisect of Tchongking."This fine piece was an entire envelope of the conventional Chinese-type with a broad red stripe thru its length. It was sold on 29 October 1928 for $9.10. It is one of my greatest regrets that I was not the purchaser, but at that time I had not yet arrived at the opinions I now hold regarding the rarity of such a piece. This is not the cover, lot 597 of the Finegan sale.

Thru the courtesy of James Starr, I am able to illustrate (Figure 5), what is perhaps an unique example of the Foochow split. This cover differs from all others examined in that the split 2-cent stamp is used without the oblong surcharging chop, and taken with the 5-cent stamp makes up the 6-cent registered letter rate. It originated with the same firm, Siemssen & Krohn, as did the cover described above addressed to Herren Pasedag & Co., altho the sender is stated on the face to be C.D. Ling; and was despatched from FOOCHOW on 24 October and backstamped in Amoy on 26 October. The bisected stamp is also the lower left-hand section. It will be noted that the half-stamp overlays parts of the address in two places, indicating that it was applied when it was cancelled in the FOOCHOW post office. I do not have any notes on the shade in which the 2-cent stamp was printed, but if my memory serves me correctly, it is the same scarlet shade described above. Had it differed from the usual shade which I have always noted in the originals, I should certainly have made a note of the fact

Figure 5 Registered cover, half of 2 cents used in Foochow 24 OCT 03, as a 1-cent stamp, without surcharging chop

Finegan Sale

Perhaps the largest group of this item which has come upon the market is that from the collection of E.H. Finegan of Utica, New York, which was sold at auction in London by Harmer, Rooke & Co. on the 15th of October 1937. It consisted of 8 lots, 4 entires and 4 on pieces of covers. Of the entires, 3 were dated the 22d and 1 the 24th. One on a piece of cover was dated the 22d and 3 the 23d. Recapitulating: 4 dated the 22d, 3 the 23d, and 1 the 24th. These proportions do not necessarily reflect the relative scarcity of the various dates, although it would seem that the cataloger thought so. More probably the only things indicated are the opportunities presented themselves. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to view Mr. Finegan's collection prior to its dispersal, altho I did telephone him from Binghamton to make an appointment for that purpose several years ago when I was driving from New York to San Francisco. He was leaving that day on a business trip and no further occasion was ever available. I should have liked to have had the chance to look over the entire collection, and particularly these 8 lots, as the descriptions in the catalog are, as with all British auctions, notoriously inadequate unless one can personally examine the stamps. As a matter of fact, one might infer from the descriptions given of these lots that the stamps had been bisected vertically and not diagonally. As shown above and if my conclusions about the method of bisecting are correct, and if all the lots were genuine, which is not necessarily true, where the descriptions specify "right half" it is inferred that the upper right-hand section is meant, and where "left half"is indicated, lower left-hand section is understood. If any are upper left-hand or lower right-hand sections, I am of the opinion that they are not genuine, altho I am open to reason on this point and would be glad to revise the conclusions expressed above upon the presentation of concrete evidence.

Without expressing any opinion as to whether the prices obtained truly reflect values, as a matter of record, all the catalog data together with the prices realized is reprinted.

1903 October 22-24.

Foochow Provisional

597 1c. on half of 2c.deep red, right half on native cover, postmarked Oct.22, cat.60/	$37.50
598 Another lot, but left half, on small cover dated Oct.22	$42.50
599 Another similar lot	$25.00
600 Another lot, but right half used on piece, dated Oct.22	$22.50
601 Another similar lot, used Oct.23	$21.00
602 Another lot, but left half, used Oct.23	$21.00
603 Another similar lot	$21.00
604 Another lot, left half, used on entire cover dated Oct.24 (rare date)	$50.00

The color nomenclature given may be safely ignored as there is no consensus regarding colors and shades of colors, and while the first lot above may be correctly described as to shade, the inference conveyed that all the lots are the same shade may be incorrect. It is hoped that they are not, as all deep red ones I have seen were not genuine. The average price obtained at this sale was about $30 each; $38.65 for entire covers and $21.35 for pieces of covers.

Values

The appreciated value of these bisects on entire envelopes has been particularly stressed thruout because of the fact that the entires show the added features by which absolute authenticity may be determined, which are not or may not be present in the case of those specimens on small pieces of covers

With regard to the relative values of entires as compared with specimens on pieces, it is my carefully considered opinion that specimens on pieces are worth not more than 20% of the value of specimens on the entire envelopes, including of course both front and back. Those on the front only, with the back of the envelope removed, are not very much more desirable than specimens on smaller pieces of covers. There is, however, no hard and fast rule applicable to the question of relative philatelic values, which are largely governed by the personal ideas of both the seller and the buyer. Values may be based upon the condition of a particular specimen or on the imponderable ideas of one of the parties. A stamp always looks much better and has a higher value to the average seller than to the buyer, and a sale is usually a matter of a compromise between the ideas of the two parties. If there is any possibility of a specimen being a scarce or rare variety, the seller almost invariably claims that his specimen is the rare one, and great is his indignation if the prospective buyer has greater philatelic knowledge or discrimination and is able to refute or disprove his claim. A case in point is that of the 5-candarin bistre 1885 issue of China. Most every off-color or faded copy in dealers' stocks are claimed to be the scarce bistre printing which catalogs several times the catalog value of the commoner printings. Every China specialist knows that if the stamp offered does not have the rough perforations measuring 12 1/2 it cannot possibly be the bistre shade, although having perforations of that type and gauge does not always mean that it is the bistre shade; but that simple fact seems to have escaped the attention of most dealers, or if known to them is kept carefully concealed.

Returning again to the consideration of relative values, the following schedule reflects the writer's estimates:
 

100%	$50.00	For specimens on entire covers having all points (a) to (g), inclusive. 90%
90%	$45.00	For specimens having points (a) to (f ), inclusive.
50%	$25.00	For specimens lacking the back of envelope, with points (a) to (c), and (e) to (g), inclusive.
25%	$12.50	Piece of envelope including surcharging chop and cancellation and part of address.
20%	$10.00	On small piece of cover

Genuine vs. Counterfeits

The question now arises, how can the authenticity of specimens be determined which are not on entire envelopes, but consist only of pieces of covers? This is a very simple matter. If the cancellation conforms to type II (Figure 7), the specimen is a fake. There are many other crude forgeries in which the cancellations are neither of these post office types, but are merely crude imitations which will scarcely deceive anyone.

It is my opinion that all the type II fake covers were manufactured between the years 1912 and 1918 by someone employed in the FOOCHOW post office who had access to the original oblong wooden surcharging chop which was used in 1903 by that post office. As the 1903, type I cancelling stamp had been worn out, the cancelling stamp then in current use, type II, was used. A person or persons in the office of the Eastern Exchange Telegraph Company probably acted in collusion with him, as many of these fakes are addressed to the office of that company.

Over a period of more than ten years I have collected all Chinese stamps that I could obtain having legible FOOCHOW cancellations thereon, believing that therein lay the clue to the source of these fakes. These cancellations separate themselves into the following groups:

Single lined circle, FOOCHOW across center, Chinese characters for Foochow above the horizontal line, dated below in English. Dates collected, 14 November 1900 to 1 March 1910. ALL GENUINE FOOCHOW SPLITS HAVE THIS TYPE CANCELLATIONS.
 

Figure 6 Cancellation in use in Foochow on 22d, 23d, and 24th Oct 1903

Single lined circle, FOOCHOW across center, Chinese characters for FOOCHOW above the horizontal line, dates below in English. Dates collected, 11 July 1912 to 14 May 1918. MOST FAKED SPLITS OF THE DANGEROUS VAR IETY DESCR IBED ABOVE HAVE THIS TYPE CANCELLATIONS.

Figure 7 Cancellation i n u se i n FOOCHOW from July 1912 to May 1918

Counterfeits

A record was kept of typical addresses found on faked entire covers, type II.
 

Addressee	Address	Date
Mr. Chui	Foochow	Oct. 22, 03
The Eastern Ex Telegraph Co.
W. Lee	Esq. E.E. Telegraph Co.
Warren	Esq. E.E. Telegraph Co.
Mrs. Warren Esq. (sic)
Mr. Wong
Mr. D.B. Wong	E.E.T. Co.
Mr. W.B. Wong
C.T. Sia Esq.
C.T. Sia		Oct. 24, 03

It is believed that these are the names of actual persons and perhaps among them is that of the perpetrator of this fraud. A critical examination of the handwriting of these addresses indicates that they were all written by one person. Altho it is apparent that an attempt was made to disguise the handwriting by executing some of them backhand, there are enough peculiarities in the manner of the forming of certain letters for one to categorically declare that one person wrote them all. These are most noticeable in the forming of the capital letters "W"and "E", and in the "oo", and the "ch"in Foochow. Most of the faked entires examined were addressed by this person. One exception, of which I have a photostat, is not addressed in English but in Chinese, on a narrow typical native envelope without the customary red middle stripe. However, in this example both the oblong chop and the cancellation differ from the commoner type II fakes described above, notably in the date which is the 23d, the incorrectly formed figures of the date, and the horizontal dividing line of the postmark joining the circular outer line at both ends.

There are other forgeries in which both the oblong surcharging chop and the cancellations are crude imitations of the originals. These are, however, too crude to deceive anyone other than the veriest tyro, and will be dismissed with a few notes on their most noticeable features.

One odd forgery which came to my attention dated 22 Oct 03 was of the correct shade but was made from a cancelled stamp peeled from an envelope with the red bar thereon, which left red on the back of the stamp, that could plainly be seen thru the thin paper upon which it was later mounted for making the fake. The figures "2"were very poorly formed.

Another common forgery which has spurious cancellation and oblong surcharging chop, is usually found on stamp sections from which the cancellations have first been washed. In this type the horizontal line of the cancellation is joined to the circle at both ends, and the corners of the oblong chop are rounded.

In conclusion, my thanks are due to the many collectors and dealers who have so obligingly permitted me to examine their collections and stocks. I am particularly indebted to James Starr and the late H.F. Colman of Washington, D.C. I appreciate that many readers may not fully concur with my conclusions regarding what I have called the type II fakes or forgeries, but I believe that after mature consideration they will agree that these "album weeds"are worthless and should be eliminated from collections and the philatelic trade. I believe that I have bought as many of the various types of fakes and forgeries of China number 88 as anyone, and if I am willing to call my fakes by their proper designation, I think they should likewise.

If I have failed to make clear any points relative to these most interesting philatelic rarities or their imitations, I should be only too pleased to correspond further with interested collectors. My address until May 1939 will be Box 184, Agana, Guam. Use the transpacific air mail to insure a prompt reply, as ordinary mail service to this island is very irregular.
 

(Originally published in Collectors Club Philatelist in October 1938.)