Fake: Uruguay Sun stamps added to British Packet cover.

(Figure 1)

What is wrong with the cover depicted in Figure 1? At first glance, the stamps look fresh, the postmark is sharp and defined but the original creator of this fake cover committed a series of philatelic errors and postal history oversights:

1 – Letters fees from Montevideo sent to Europe by British Packet Services were not paid by usage of Adhesive stamps.

2 – Only the left half of the cover is available, why? The right side of the cover, and the original Montevideo oval date stamp were removed to avoid conflicting dates with the oval Montevideo date stamp (O.D.S.) applied over the adhesives.

3 – Comparing the Montevideo O.D.S applied on the stamps with other oval Montevideo marks   applied on similar covers there are many key characteristics lacking on the fake one, albeit it measures nearly the same as the original one.

4 – Covers from the Barthold & Co correspondence archive addressed to "VIOT" are known to have been enhanced by forgers with the addition of Uruguay stamps.

Some contemporary covers from a reference collection
from the same archive as the fake cover in Fig. 1

(Figure 2)

The cover shown in Figure 2 is a British Packet service letter from Montevideo to Le Havre by Southampton . Postmarked at Montevideo on May 31 st   1861 with London , Calais , and Paris transits. The typical practice of the post office was to place the Montevideo O.D.S. at the top right corner or at the right side of the letter. This further supports the notion that the cover was reduced at the right hand side to remove the conflicting postmark.

(Figure 3)

Another example of the British Packet service letter from Montevideo to Le Havre via Southampton which is also from the E. Barthold & Co. archive. Postmarked at Montevideo on August 30 th . 1861, the Montevideo O.D.S. has the usual wear characteristics and marks also present on the previous letter (Figure 2) but completely absent on the fake letter (Figure 1).

A Special Note about the Montevideo O.D.S. used during 1861

(Figure 4)

It is possible to demonstrate that Montevideo used only 1 canceling device during the year in question (1861) for all the outgoing mail by Packet Services. The constant usage of this metal device over the years produced a consistent pattern of easy to identify wear marks and signs completely apparent on all the marks I have personally seen.

Close examination of the image in Figure 4 shows the characteristics of a genuine postmark including cancel curvature, the wearing of the bottom line, the letter type used for the date numerals. The fake postmark (inset in Figure 4) do not show the similar characteristics of the postmark in Figure 4 which was used one month before the fake postmark.

Mauro Mowszowicz

RPSL Certificate confirming the author's opinion.
(thanks to Dr. A. Fumu)