Kerr 136.

Join Roman and Simon as we do our best to test the listings made by Kerr and later by Chan. What has been missed? Which overprints have been assigned to the wrong towns? What is genuine and what is suspect? - You get the idea......

Moderators: archiem, doc032848, wlin98004

Post Reply
User avatar
Roman
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:20 am

Kerr 136.

Post by Roman » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:16 pm

Dear George,

can you please show me some covers of this town? Do you have the exact date when 帽儿山镇 was liberated?

Thank you!

Roman

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:14 pm
Location: Rural Sussex, England
Contact:

Re: Kerr 136.

Post by admin » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:20 am

For those who don't know Kerr 136 is Mao Erh Shan.

I know the question was not addressed to me but for what its worth I have never seen a postally used cover from this town. I have seen Harbin dealer covers with a Harbin postmark but I don't count those.
.
Attachments
MaoErhShanMap.jpg
MaoErhShanMap.jpg (87.59 KiB) Viewed 872 times

User avatar
Roman
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Kerr 136.

Post by Roman » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:11 pm

Thank you Simon. It's a very small town which issued an extensive amount of stamps (so far this information all existing literature is happy copying from each other) which practically, so far for me as well, is unknown on covers.

Kerr listed (by mistake?) a used price for most of the stamps issued by this town but in the back of the catalog he only listed one cover (which even wasn't in his collection). For Kerr 136.1-17 in his footnote: "Covers are known, Used values are known..." Known where? By whom? Sounds all for me speculative (like "I heard from a friend who knows a collector who met some guy once he had these stamps on cover"). This was the reason I asked George especially to show us a cover.

But not only this missing prove (up to now) these stamps existing on covers would be interesting, I'm wonder as well which type of overprint (for Kerr 136.1.17) is used on cover? Not sure if anyone noticed, the stamps existing in a wide range of similar (but not same) overprints. I found so far at least three types (but seems more existing). So, this very small town not only issued a high amount of stamps, they comes even with a wide range of different types.

I add here a scan of the two bootlet panes (yes, even booklet panes were overprinted) where I pick Type I and Type II. I show the booklet panes to prove for Kerr 136.1-17 was not a combined chop used.

Maybe someone can enlighten me for this issue (When / if they were ever commercial used? How many overprinted types existing or some are bogus?).
Booklet-Panes.jpg
Booklet-Panes.jpg (1.3 MiB) Viewed 868 times
Small+Large.jpg
Small+Large.jpg (663.91 KiB) Viewed 868 times

doc032848
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: Kerr 136.

Post by doc032848 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:48 am

Roman, Simon,

I have never seen anything from Mao-erh-shan on what looked to me like a really used cover.

The same for Mao-erh-shan-chan. The only covers from this specific locality I have all have the problems with the date line in the cancellation.

As for all the variations of the chops on Mao-erh-shan, you are giving me an education. I have never seen so much variation.

I have not put either town in one of my exhibits that I can recall.

User avatar
Roman
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Kerr 136.

Post by Roman » Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:01 am

Can you please explain what you mean exactly by "with the date line in the cancellation."?

doc032848
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: Kerr 136.

Post by doc032848 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:56 am

Roman,

Often the 35 is inverted, or the day and year are reversed.
It could be that someone who did not know our numerical system mis-set the cancelling devices I suppose.
I just need a plausible explanation my good man.

George

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:14 pm
Location: Rural Sussex, England
Contact:

Re: Kerr 136.

Post by admin » Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:02 pm

I know what you mean.
.
Attachments
MaoErhShanOpts.jpg
MaoErhShanOpts.jpg (86.83 KiB) Viewed 861 times

User avatar
Roman
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Kerr 136.

Post by Roman » Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:34 pm

Oh ... yes, haha got it, yes ... the Kerr 137 are pure bogus.

Not only the inverted date section is strange.

- none of these covers were real used or postally shipped
- many covers exists with used (CTO) stamps but no address
- the front cancel pressed through the backside, clear sign the cover was cancelled without content
- all have this inverted date: 14|08|35

And at the best, here a sample with the a Chinese black box at rear (you can see it fair through the thin paper right below) with a text: "Manchurian Imperial Post" ... really, nobody would use after the surrender of the Japanese such a cover!!

Without headaches we can put 136+137 as bogus.
Kerr-137.jpg
Kerr-137.jpg (662.54 KiB) Viewed 859 times

doc032848
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: Kerr 136.

Post by doc032848 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:03 pm

Roman,

I quite agree with your analysis. Usually that line about Manchu Empire is crossed out.

George

Post Reply