German Colonies Collectors Group Forum - Recent Posts

RE: China 1905 revalued 10 on 20 rosette flaw?

Paul Czopek — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 22:38:14 +0000

I have a copy of a Michel Deutschland-Spezial 2000 catalog that lists a #31 II with a broken LEFT rosette. It is listed at 500 euros used. I don't know if a connection can be made between it and your copy but I think it would be worth the fee to have it checked out.

Ronald Steuer in Vienna is a great expertizing source. His email is ronald.steuer@chello.at Send him a high resolution scan and ask if he thinks it worth looking at.

RE: China 1905 revalued 10 on 20 rosette flaw?

Paul Czopek — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 22:28:55 +0000

I have this copy of the non-watermarked issue. I know there is a documented flaw involving a damaged left rosette, however this one clearly has a damaged right rosette. Is this already a known issue that I'm not aware of or have I struck it rich? :

RE: partial Kiautschou postmarkI can't ID

Dain Jones — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:25:29 +0000

@postmastergs Thank you!

RE: partial Kiautschou postmarkI can't ID

Paul Czopek — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:10:59 +0000

48 49 50 To iilistrate. Slash was use to separate date in 1906. Dot was used in 1907. Since cancel illistration shows a shash, it might have been the post master's choice?

RE: partial Kiautschou postmarkI can't ID

Paul Czopek — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:06:39 +0000

RE: partial Kiautschou postmarkI can't ID

Paul Czopek — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:03:02 +0000

It's only about 2/3 of the full postmark so I'm having trouble identifying which mark this is. The closest match I can make of it is the Fr26 Tsingtau-Tapautau. The barely visible beginning and ending letters at the left and right corners match those names, as well as being layed-out at the correct angle.

The problem is, the day and month for that postmark should be separated by a "/" not a bold "." Also, I might be wrong, but the Fr26 depicted in the awesome pages from germanstamps.net also shows the star on the right is not level with the star on the left, and is noticeably closer to the U in Kiautshou than the U above it, whereas the right star on my stamp seems to be level with the left star and equidistant between the U's. I can't find another Kiautshou postmark that matches it better, either because of the layout or the dates of usage, this one being July 27, 1912.

Thanks for looking!

-- attachment is not available --

RE: partial Kiautschou postmarkI can't ID

Jed Dorman — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 03:59:50 +0000

@jonesdm,

It's Tsingtau-Tapautau. I overlaid it in Photoshop with one from my collection, and it's a perfect match.

Pretty sure the dot/slash in the date were interchangeable just like the number slugs. The example given in Friedemann – with slash – is likely from Gleichmann's records, as it pre-dates the period of postal use. Gleichmann was the manufacturer of the cancellers, and IIRC, they made sample cancellations in their records, typically with the current date, upon completion of the manufacturing process and before shipping them to the Reichspost. So it likely originally used a slash. The example in the ArGe postmark catalog also has a slash, but with a later date the Friedemann's example, from during the period of known use (that's also the one used on my album pages).

However, there are examples from throughout the colonies of the same canceller using slash, dot, or neither, over time. I have Tsingtau-Tapautau postmarks in my collection with a dot and without a dot or slash – see here – but not one with a slash. Go figure.

RE: China 1905 revalued 10 on 20 flaw?

Jed Dorman — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 03:44:53 +0000

@jonesdm,

I'm not aware of that error, but that's not saying much. That flaw isn't listed in Michel, and it doesn't match the damage to the left one that is listed. Could be just a 1-off, or damage during use, or an overprint flaw that hasn't been cataloged yet because the research hasn't been done into whether it's a consistent error.