A doubtful F1 cover

This well known 1873 cover ex. several famous Hong Kong collections including Crawford and Ishikawa has been found "A little different" from the other Foochow F1 covers. This cover has been recorded by Richard Gurevitch et al the "Earliest recorded Foochow cover bearing the F1 killer". However, since publication of our member Frank Drake's "Survey of Foochow F1 covers" in the Society's Journal 6 and the recent appearance of this item in a Hong Kong sale, so that close inspection of this item could be done. Several questions have been asked:-

In addition, one of our members points out the following characteristics shown by the Foochowfoo c.d.s.:-

(1) The top horizontal bar of F for most FOOCHOWFOO c.d.s. is closer to the ring than this example.
(2) The second "C" of FOOCHOWFOO showed straight top and bottom ends; where other examples showed curved appearance of downwards and upwards for top and bottom ends respectively.
(3) The "H" for FOOCHOWFOO is taller and narrower than other examples.
(4) The third "O" in round; where other examples oval.
(5) The W for FOOCHOWFOO is characterised with narrow 1st V and wider 2nd V. This c.d.s. showed two symmetrical Vs making up the "W".
(6) The top of the fourth "O" is in line with the top of the last digit of the date slug whereas in this c.d.s. well above it.
(7) The year slug figure 3 for 1873 is different from the other examples.

Perhaps one can argue that a cover with such a pedigree cannot be a fake since it has passed through the hands of many experts. However, the salient features pointed out by our members needed to be explained rationally and not by saying that it is a previously unrecorded "Type II" cancel or "The experts would have noticed it years ago.....etc....". Please let us know what you think.

For the "F1" obliterator, the example shown on the cover under question suggests that it could be of the "Thin type" variety of the three variation types that I mentioned in my article in HKPS Journal 6. The other example that you have shown for comparison is the "Standard type". There are physical differences between the two types. Please refer to the Journal for details, including illustrations and measurements. What might be surprising is that the "Thin type", in my frequency survey findings, were noted to be "more often found in black inking with the issues from 1880". Now, could it be that the person "manufacturing" the FI strike onto the adhesive and the cover, did he use the wrong example type to make his copy! Based on evidence suggested from covers and loose adhesives, the type of F1 prevailing in use during the early periods should have been the "Standard type", not the "Thin type".

4.10.02 Charles Chan wrote:-

The appearence of Foochowfoo cds would suggest its doubtful status and the HK cds looks to be hand-drawn poorly. The appearence of the F1 obliteration is not comfortable for reasons above-stated. Nevertheless, my eyes would concentrate on the rectangular patch of discoloration (or different degree of aging) adjacant to the 30c stamp till the left boundary of the Foochowfoo cds. Usually the degree of aging of the paper (due to oxidation or sulphurisation) would be uniform apart from areas covered by stamps. I would like to formulate an interesting question here : What would cause such different degree of aging and result in the rectangular discoloration? By viewing the area being affected, it looks something, likely a couple of stamps had been removed. Modern technology can answer this question easily, just place the cover under UV lighting in the dark environment. Should there be two stamps before and had been removed, that part would give a bright UV reaction due to the gum trace. To remove a stamp from cover is easy but it is hard to remove the remaining gum absorbed into the paper texture without damaging it. Just a simple test would tell the truth, and the owner can do such test "in dark" without the need of consulting an expert.

10.10.02 From our records, the Earliest "F1" cover is now dated 13 June 1874