Home Index Books Links Articles About Dedication Contact FICC

Cook Islands

ficc

David Olson noted, "Scott catalog gives a gauge of 12.5 for genuine Cook Islands #1-8. I am consistently measuring 12.8 or 12.9. Can any one comment on this?"

Cook Islands Genuine


1892, Cook Islands, #1, Genuine

Cook Islands

(1.) Perf 12.8.
(2.) Toned paper.
(3.) Break in the bottom frame line approximately 1.3 mm wide at the left corner.
(4.) Another break in the bottom frame line approximately 1 mm wide directly below the vertical stroke of "E" of one.
(5.) Several smaller breaks of about .1 mm to .2 mm, 3 or 4 in the bottom frame line, and 3 or 4 in the right side frame line.
(6.) There is an offset about half the width of the line in the right side frame line 4 mm up from the bottom.
(7.) The letters in "POSTAGE" are about 2 mm high.
(8.) The inner part of the frame is composed of short lines, each with a sort of tear drop at the end. There are 26 of these on top, 26 on the bottom, 32 on the right side, and 32 on the left.
(9.) Exp:do. Ref: F. Aretz.


1892, Cook Islands, #5, Genuine

Cook Islands

(1.) Perf 12.8.
(2.) White paper.
(3.) All the same characteristics of #1 above but printed on white paper.
(4.) Exp:do. Ref: Scott catalog.

Cook Islands Forgery


Forgery of Cook Islands #1

Cook Islands

(1.) This forgery is perf 12.8 as the genuine, and is printed on toned paper as the genuine.
(2.) The outer frame line is thinner than the genuine, and does not have breaks of the length and location of the genuine.
(3.) There is no offset on the right side 4 mm up from the bottom of the stamp.
(4.) The letters in "POSTAGE" are thinner and only about 1.8 mm high.
(5.) There are 27 tear drops over "Postage" on this forgery. They are not as plump or uniform as the genuine.
(6.) Exp:do


Second Forgery of Cook Islands #1

Cook Islands

(1.) This example is perf 12 not 12.8.
(2.) It is printed on toned paper, though, and has other characteristics of the genuine.
(3.) But, the 1.3 mm break and the 1 mm break in the bottom frame line are not there. It appears to be a forgery.
(4.) Exp:do. Ref: F. Aretz.