I think these two are ok but the images aren't very sharp.
I've not checked mine before but using Bynof-Smith as a reference (a general forgery guide) I seem to have a genuine mint set and very nicely cancelled "used" set of forgeries.
In my forgeries the dates at the top are smaller and to my eyes the figure "8" has a different shape.
There are other differences but they really need a sharper scan to be clear.
These differences involve the shape of the ornaments at the middle left, the form of the letters "A" in the text at the left, the detail on the outstretched hand of the fallen soldier etc.
Maybe someone more experienced with this issue could confirm or correct what I've written?
There are two types of forgeries of this issue. In both types of forgeries, look at the year date "1902" in the upper right corner of the stamp. If the foot of the number "2" touches the frame line, it is a forgery. In the genuine stamps the foot of the numeral does not touch the frame line.
Here's a closeup with higher resolution and some colour adjustments. Neither of the feet of the 2 touch the frame, which is good. But it is certainly closer on #70 (top image) than #71 (bottom).
Interestingly on #70 the numbers are thicker, the top of the 2 is tilted more into the 0, and the foot is more curved than flat.
Assuming the copies I have are legit another noticeable difference is seen in the scroll that surrounds the year-date. On the forgeries there is a clear break between the vertical lines and the “coat-hanger” shape on top.
I agree that the red stamp features look thicker because of a "heavy inking".
The paper is very flimsy and seems porous. And the printing reminds me of days as a kid in the 1960s doing silkscreens. Is there a similar process for printing stamps? If so, that would lend further credence to your observation.
Another thing that struck me is the odd tilt on the "2". I wonder if the "190" was printed first and the "2" on a second pass - perhaps to leave it open for issues in 1903, 1904, etc? I quickly looked for such info but did not find anything useful.
Thanks for all the great responses Michael & Nigel.
The always informative 1840-1940 Big Blue blog has an excellent article regarding this issue, along with some history. It has illustrations of genuine and forged examples with many distinguishing features between the two.
VERY interesting (the history especially as I collect WWI and WWII issues and like to get the "deep" background of previous wars, disputes, and political forces that lead to new countries, shifts of territories between countries, etc).
I've bookmarked Big Blue as I suspect there may be a wealth of great info there.
Cheers, Dave.
1 Member likes this post. Login to Like.
Please Note: Postings that were loaded from the old Discussion Board cannot be edited.
.. 
..
