Some time ago I saw the Athens Type II provisional stamp illustrated in Figure 1 for sale on eBay. At first glance it appeared to be a desirable copy of the Athens Type II purple stamp. Yet there was something in the back of my mind that said something was wrong. On closer examination I realized this stamp was unlike any other Athens provisional I had seen.

The most glaring difference was in the lettering. The width of the colorless letters was noticeably smaller on this stamp. Another apparent difference was the slightly concave left side of the stamp. I relayed my concerns to the seller of the stamp. In short order he called, and we discussed my findings. He suggested that the differences may be from over-inking or that the stamp was from an early printing. There was merit in these theories, so I requested he send me the stamp for closer examination.

On receipt of the suspect stamp I first looked for features of the stamp that would dispute its being from an early printing. The most obvious was the small width of the colorless letters. The Athens provisional stamp was prepared from an engraved woodblock of two subjects. Those areas that were to be colorless were engraved or carved into the block so they would not pick up ink. As prints are made from such a woodblock, the surface of the block gradually wears down; and the width of engraved lines get smaller and smaller. The result is that an early printing will show wide colorless letters, and a later printing after wear will show colorless letters of a slightly reduced width. The authentic Athens provisionals were used from October 1861 to March 1862 and all show wide colorless lines. Therefore, the Athens stamp with its narrower colorless letters cannot be from an early printing.

Figure 1 -- Authentic Type II Athens Provisional on the left with the fake on the right.

Over-inking was a distinct possibility that could explain the narrow colorless letters. So I examined the stamp for signs of this. The fuzzy indistinct borders at the top and right side are one possible sign of over-inking. Another is the reduced size of the stars inside the inner oval. I then looked at the inner border of the stamp. It is made up of two thin colorless lines with a thin inked line between. If the suspect copy were from an over-inked print, we would expect the center colored line to be thicker and the two colorless lines much narrower or non-existent. However, on both stamps this border is essentially the same. The thickness of the colorless curved ornamental lines in the four spandrels is also essentially the same on both stamps. These features cast serious doubt on the over-inked printing theory.

After satisfying myself that the suspect stamp was not from an early printing and not over-inked, I concluded it was a fake. The most obvious difference between the two stamps is the left border. On the normal stamp this border is straight. On the suspect stamp it is slightly concave. The ink on the suspect stamp also lacks the coarse granularity that is so apparent on the normal stamp. This suggests the fake stamp was printed from a medium much smoother than the original.

The fake stamp was obviously prepared by a more experienced hand than the authentic one. The design was prepared with much finer tools as evidenced in the smaller width of the colorless lettering and the thin uniform lines of the ornamental designs in the spandrels. These designs have a smoothness in the curves that is lacking in the authentic stamp. The faker was also very careful in copying both the alignment and crudeness of the letters. He even went so far as to include the tiny jets extending from the bottom of the left leg of the "M" in "P. M." and the top left leg of the "N" in "ATHENS." In my opinion, this is a well-executed and dangerous fake.

I now turned my attention to finding other differences between the fake stamp and an authentic stamp. I found many, but will limit the descriptions to several that are easiest to identify. In the upper right spandrel of the fake, the inner vertical line crosses the lower scroll line. In an authentic stamp, the vertical line stops at the bottom of the lower scroll line. (Figure 2)

Figure 2 -- Inner vertical line in spandrel stops at scroll on the authentic stamp (left) but crosses scroll on the fake (right).

On the authentic stamp, there is a short upward extension of the stem of the letter "D" in the word "PAID." This is missing on the fake. (Figure 3)

The horizontal line under the word "PAID" droops down under the "D" on the fake. The line is straight on the authentic stamp. (Figure 3)

On the authentic stamp, the top of the bowl of the "5" extends to the left of the terminal ball at the bottom of the bowl. On the fake, the top of the bowl of the "5" does not extend beyond the terminal ball on the bowl. (Figure 3)

The letter "G" in the state abbreviation is different on the two stamps. On the authentic stamp, there is a very thick colorless crossbar. On the fake, there is just a hint of a crossbar. (Figure 3)

Figure 3 --Note differences in the "D," the line under "PAID," the "5," and the "G." Authentic stamp is on the left, fake on the right.

On the authentic stamp, there is a slight bend in the upper scroll in the lower right spandrel. On the fake, the curve is smooth. (Figure 4)

Figure 4 -- Note bend in upper scroll under "G" in the authentic stamp (left) and smooth curve of the scroll in the fake (right).

It is interesting that the fake also bears a close resemblance to an illustration of the Athens Type II stamp first published in an article by John W. Scott in the April 1872 issue of the American Journal of Philately (Figure 5). The fake and the Scott illustration are quite similar in the composition of the scrolls and ornaments in the spandrels. However, the lettering of the fake (except for the numeral "5") closely follows that of the authentic Athens Type II provisional in form and alignment.

Figure 5 -- Fake on left, Scott illustration from 1872 on right.