ZAR Overprints of NATAL Issues
We have been emailed the stamps below by Dave Clarke who asks "Can you help out on the attached overprints? I cannot find a reference to them".
Dave, the reason you cannot find a reference to them is because they are most probably fake overprints on genuine Natal used stamps. I am no Natal expert and cannot provide proof of that statement but that is my gut feeling.
For what it is worth, both overprints share the same font for 'EEN PENNY' which tends to suggest that they come from the same source despite differences in the 'ZAR' which uses different fonts. It also appears that the 1d red's 'ZAR' uses two different fonts, the 'Z' appearing to be thinner and italicised and the last dot after 'R' possibly being square, not round - and raised! This is exactly the sort of shoddy ad hoc arrangement you would expect to find on overprints created in wartime - or made by children or knowledgeable philatelic scoundrels.
Being overprinted 'ZAR', the assumption that the faker wanted to create was that they were for use in or by the ZAR. Being 'ZAR', (not Transvaal), the next assumption, perhaps, is that they are from the period of the Boer invasion of Natal during the South African War 11 October 1899 - 1902. The stamps are right for that period but the date of '13 4 99', (if that is what it says), is not. The 1d red was cancelled with a GPO NATAL datestamp ie. it was used in Natal, not in the ZAR. Why would the Natal PO cancel an overprinted ZAR stamp? The answer is that it did not. The overprint has been applied to a previously used stamp. The fact that the dates are usefully unclear on the ha'penny stamp further influences my belief that they are mischevious fakes.
They're intriguing so thanks for submitting them. Let's see what some of the experts have to say. I could be wrong. Let's hope I am and that you have submitted a wonderful new find.
Uploaded files:
The stamp on the left is a blatant forgery - what clinches this is the postmark, which is a "G.P.O. NATAL" date-stamp, i.e. Pietermaritzburg, well outside the ZAR-occupied area I think the date probably reads 13 4 / 92: OK for the stamp, but not for the Boer War period. The postmark on the stamp on the right is harder to read; I think I can read "SER" at top left, which suggests DANNHAUSER, and there's what could well be a "D" at bottom left. That's inside the ZAR-occupied area, but everything else suggests a forgery,
Bas, I guess that because they share the same 'EEN PENNY' setting, they come from the same source. Thus, if the 1d red is a 'blatant forgery', so is the ha'penny green. Nice work spotting 'DANNHAUSER'. I saw it but could not place it!
Thank you Steve and Bas for the info, I had a feeling they were a bit moody!
Thank you again.
Dave (Nunpleb)