Journal of the Rossica Society of Russian Philately

THE JOURNAL ISSN o005-8

of the

ROSSICA SOCIETY

of

RUSSIAN PHILATELY

AWARDS
"WIPA" 1933 BRONZE MEDAL "PRAGA" 1962 SILVER MEDAL
"PRAGA" 1935 BRONZE MEDAL "MELUSINA" 1963 SILVER MEDAL
"OSTRAPA" 1935 SILVER MEDAL "PHI LATEC" 1964 SILVER MEDAL
"ZEFIB" 1937 SILVER MEDAL 'WIPA" 1965 SILVER MEDAL
"BEPHILA" 19'7 SILVER MEDAL "SIPEX" 1966 SILVER MEDAL
"EFICON" 1958 SILVER MEDAL "PRAGA" 1968 SILVER MEDAL
"TEMEX" 1958 SILVER MEDAL "APS-68" 1968 SILVER MEDAL
"INTERPOSTA" 1959 SILVER MEDAL "EFIMEX" 1968 SILVER CERTIFICATE
"SICILIA" 1959 SILVER MEDAL "SOFIA-69" 1969 SILVER CERTIFICATE
"BARCELONA" 1960 -SILVER MEDAL "BUDAPEST-71" 1971 -SILVER CERTIFICATE
"UNIPEX" 1960 SILVER MEDAL "CHICAGO-APS" 1974 GOLD MEDAL
"POLSKA" 1960 SILVER MEDAL "CAPEX-78" 1978 LARGE SILVER MEDAL
"WIPA" 1981 SILVER MEDAL
No 106/107 1985

THE JOURNAL OF THE
ROSSICA SOCIETY OF RUSSIAN PHILATELY

VOLUME 106/107 for 1985

EDITORIAL BOARD: George Shalimoff, M. E. Wilson
MANAGING EDITOR & PUBLISHER: Kennedy L. Wilson

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIFE OF THE SOCIETY, Gordon Torrey ......................................... 3

MINUTES OF THE 1985 ANNUAL ROSSICA BUSINESS MEETING, Kennedy Wilson ........ 4

UKRAINPEX '85 .................................................. .... 5

A FORGED YANOV/JANOW MARKING ON A FOLDED LETTER, G. Shalimoff ............ 7

RARE STAMPS OF THE RSFSR, 0. Basov, translated by D. Skipton ............... 13

A RUSSO JAPANESE WAR PRISONER OF WAR CARD, G. Torrey ....................... 16

ANT-3, P. Campbell ..................................................... 17

THE RUSSIAN FIELD POST OFFICES DURING THE AUSTRO/RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN
HUNGARY IN 1849, I. Roberts ........................................ ... 21

RUSSIAN FIELDPOSTS IN THE BALTIC STATES, 1939-41, A Leppa ................ 24

SO YOU WANT TO BE A POSTMAN, D. Skipton .................................. 32

THE 8 KOPEK OVERPRINTS ON POSTAGE DUE AND POSTAGE STAMPS, G. Shalinoff ..... 35

VREMENNOE UPDATE, D. Skipton ............................................... 47

THE BEGINNING OF MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND GERMANY IN 1918, A. Leppa. 55

CATALOG CONFUSION, G. Shalinoff ............................................ 57

EXPERTIZATION OF ZEMSTVO COVERS, D. Kuznetsov, translated by D. Skipton .... 61

JUST STAMPING AROUND, L. Tann ............................................. 66

RAILROAD LINES 125 AND 126, E. Blake and G. Shalimoff ..................... 68

BALACHOVKA, THE ASOBNY ATRAD ISSUE, W. Lesh .............................. 70

SOVIET POSTS IN THE WESTERN UKRAINE, 1939-1941, M. Shmuely ............... 85

A TREASURED RELIC, G. Reickhman, translated by G. Shalimoff ................ 94

VARIETIES MADE TO ORDER, V. Popov ........................................ 96

MAIL FROM THE FINNISH COLONY IN SIBERIA, A. Leppa .......................... 97

HONORED MEMBERS

Joseph Chudoba Constantine de Stackelberg

OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY

PRESIDENT: Gordon H. Torrey, 5118 Duvall Drive, Bethesda, MD 20016

VICE PRESIDENT: George V. Shalimoff, 20 Westgate Drive, San Francisco, CA 94127

SECRETARY: Kennedy L. Wilson, 7415 Venice Street, Falls Church, VA 22043

TREASURER: Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226

LIBRARIAN: Howard Weinert, 500 Stoneleigh Road, Baltimore, MD 21212

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Lester Glass, 1553 So. La Cienaga Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90035
Samuel Robbins, 3565 Meier Street, Los Angeles, CA 90066
Howard Weinert, 500 Stoneleigh Road, Baltimore, MD 21212

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SOCIETY

G.B. SALISBURY CHAPTER: Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226

WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE CHAPTER: Gordon Torrey, 5118 Duvall Dr., Bethesda, MD 20016

ARTHUR B. SHIELDS CHAPTER: Samuel Robbins, 3563 Meier St., Los Angeles, CA 90066

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER: George V. Shalimoff, 20 Westgate Drive,
San Francisco, CA 94127

GREAT BRITAIN: John Lloyd, "The Retreat," West Bergholdt,
Colchester, Essex C06 3HE

Anything in this Journal may be reproduced without permission. However,
acknowledgement of the source and a copy of the reprinted matter would be
appreciated. The views in this Journal expressed by the authors are their
own and the editors disclaim all responsibility.

The membership dues are $20.00, due on January 1st for all members.
Application forms are available upon request from the secretary or treasurer.
Membership lists will be sent annually. Kindly make all checks payable to:
ROSSICA SOCIETY OF RUSSIAN PHILATELY
c/o Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11226 USA

We have a number of back issues of the Journal for sale, both in English
and Russian language editions (some). These may be obtained from Mr. Wilson.

Copyright 1985
The Rossica Society

2

HONORED MEMBERS

Joseph Chudoba Constantine de Stackelberg

OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY

PRESIDENT: Gordon H. Torrey, 5118 Duvall Drive, Bethesda, MD 20016

VICE PRESIDENT: George V. Shalimoff, 20 Westgate Drive, San Francisco, CA 94127

SECRETARY: Kennedy L. Wilson, 7415 Venice Street, Falls Church, VA 22043

TREASURER: Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226

LIBRARIAN: Howard Weinert, 500 Stoneleigh Road, Baltimore, MD 21212

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Lester Glass, 1553 So. La Cienaga Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90035
Samuel Robbins, 3565 Meier Street, Los Angeles, CA 90066
Howard Weinert, 500 Stoneleigh Road, Baltimore, MD 21212

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SOCIETY

G.B. SALISBURY CHAPTER: Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226

WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE CHAPTER: Gordon Torrey, 5118 Duvall Dr., Bethesda, MD 20016

ARTHUR B. SHIELDS CHAPTER: Samuel Robbins, 3563 Meier St., Los Angeles, CA 90066

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER: George V. Shalimoff, 20 Westgate Drive,
San Francisco, CA 94127

GREAT BRITAIN: John Lloyd, "The Retreat," West Bergholdt,
Colchester, Essex C06 3HE

Anything in this Journal may be reproduced without permission. However,
acknowledgement of the source and a copy of the reprinted matter would be
appreciated. The views in this Journal expressed by the authors are their
own and the editors disclaim all responsibility.

The membership dues are $20.00, due on January 1st for all members.
Application forms are available upon request from the secretary or treasurer.
Membership lists will be sent annually. Kindly make all checks payable to:
ROSSICA SOCIETY OF RUSSIAN PHILATELY
c/o Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11226 USA

We have a number of back issues of the Journal for sale, both in English
and Russian language editions (some). These may be obtained from Mr. Wilson.

Copyright 1985
The Rossica Society

2

HONORED MEMBERS

Joseph Chudoba Constantine de Stackelberg

OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY

PRESIDENT: Gordon H. Torrey, 5118 Duvall Drive, Bethesda, MD 20016

VICE PRESIDENT: George V. Shalimoff, 20 Westgate Drive, San Francisco, CA 94127

SECRETARY: Kennedy L. Wilson, 7415 Venice Street, Falls Church, VA 22043

TREASURER: Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226

LIBRARIAN: Howard Weinert, 500 Stoneleigh Road, Baltimore, MD 21212

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Lester Glass, 1553 So. La Cienaga Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90035
Samuel Robbins, 3565 Meier Street, Los Angeles, CA 90066
Howard Weinert, 500 Stoneleigh Road, Baltimore, MD 21212

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SOCIETY

G.B. SALISBURY CHAPTER: Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226

WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE CHAPTER: Gordon Torrey, 5118 Duvall Dr., Bethesda, MD 20016

ARTHUR B. SHIELDS CHAPTER: Samuel Robbins, 3563 Meier St., Los Angeles, CA 90066

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER: George V. Shalimoff, 20 Westgate Drive,
San Francisco, CA 94127

GREAT BRITAIN: John Lloyd, "The Retreat," West Bergholdt,
Colchester, Essex C06 3HE

Anything in this Journal may be reproduced without permission. However,
acknowledgement of the source and a copy of the reprinted matter would be
appreciated. The views in this Journal expressed by the authors are their
own and the editors disclaim all responsibility.

The membership dues are $20.00, due on January 1st for all members.
Application forms are available upon request from the secretary or treasurer.
Membership lists will be sent annually. Kindly make all checks payable to:
ROSSICA SOCIETY OF RUSSIAN PHILATELY
c/o Norman Epstein, 33 Crooke Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11226 USA

We have a number of back issues of the Journal for sale, both in English
and Russian language editions (some). These may be obtained from Mr. Wilson.

Copyright 1985
The Rossica Society

2

S THE DOUBLE V "BLANKS" OF 1917, L. Tann ..................................... 99

PHILATELIC MI4ENTOS OF "REILLY, ACE OF SPIES", G. Torrey ................... 103

AMERICAN SUPPLY CONVOYS TO MURMANSK, 1941-1945, P. Michalove ..............106

SOVIET AUTHENTICATION MARKS, V. Aloits, translated by G. Shalimoff .........109

NOTES FROM COLLECTORS ...................................................115

MEMBER TO MEMBER ADLETS ....................................................122

THE ROSSICA LIBRARY, D. Skipton ...........................................123

THE ROSSICA BOOKSHELF ......... .......................................... 125

LIFE OF THE SOCIETY

by Gordon Torrey

This is being written just prior to our annual meeting at BALPEX on
September 1st. As mentioned in Rossica Nos. 104/105 the attendance at last
year's meeting was excellent, and after the business meeting a lively trading
session went on for a considerable period of time, much to the benefit of all
concerned.

During the past year a goodly number of Rossica members availed themselves
of the opportunity offered in George Shalimoff's newsletter to purchase through
the Society at a discount copies of the "i4TAJ7OF nOWMri E M4POI 1918-1980,"
2 volumes, Moscow 1983 (Catalog of the Postage Stamps of the USSR--1918-1980),
751 pages with hundreds of illustrations. This has been another service of the
Society. A few more copies remain and can be ordered at $15.00 postpaid. If
you wish a copy, send your order to me along with your check made out to Gordon
Torrey. Copies of Prigara can also still be ordered at the special member's
discount of $35.00 plus $2.00 postage and packing.

Rossica is planning to have a special meeting at AMERIPEX '86, the
International Philatelic Exhibition to be held in Chicago May 22-June 1, 1986.
The Society will share a stand (booth) with the POLONUS Society. This will make
it convenient for members attending the exhibition to meet and leave messages
for each other. It will be manned by volunteers from the two societies. Any
help along this line would be greatly appreciated.

A meeting of Rossica members, and anyone else interested, will be held in
Continental Room A on Sunday, May 25th from 1:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. There will
be a program. It is hoped that many of our members from abroad will be at the
meeting, and as exhibitors, too. Information about the exhibition and hotel
accommodations can be obtained from AMERIPEX '86, 5944 West Montrose Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60634-1628, U.S.A.

"I will be a member of the international jury at AMERIPEX and will be there
during the entire exhibition. I am looking forward to meeting as many members
and visitors as possible.

3

ROSSICA SOCIETY OF RUSSIAN PHILATELY
1985 ANNUAL MEETING

MINUTES
BALPEX '85 1 September 1985

The annual business meeting of the Rossica Society of Russian Philately was
held at 3:00 p.m., 1 September 1985, in conjunction with BALPEX '85 at the Hunt
Valley Inn, Cockeysville, Maryland.

Roll Call of Officers: President: Gordon Torrey present
Vice President: George Shalimoff excused
Secretary: Kennedy Wilson excused
Treasurer: Norman Epstein present
Librarian: Howard Weinert present
Directors: Sam Robbins excused, unable to attend
Lester Glass excused, unable to attend

Members present: William Nickle, Denys Voaden, Leon Finik, Adolph Ackerman,
George Shaw, Clyde North, Thomas Waters, Roslyn Winard,
Quinlan Shea, Martin Cerini, Joseph Geraci

Secretary's Report: Due to the absence of the Secretary, there was no
Secretary's report.

Treasurer's Report: The Treasurer reported that as of 30 June 1985, the bank
balance of the Society was $16,793.49, less amounts owed of approximately
$1800.00. The Treasurer noted that this put the Society in a good position to
do more publishing of hardbound books, such as the Prigara.

Old Business: President Torrey requested individuals attending the meeting to
stand, introduce themselves, and state their philatelic collecting interests.

New Business: President Torrey mentioned that Rossica would share a lounge with
the Polonus Philatelic Society at AMERIPEX '86. Also, Rossica would host a
meeting on Sunday 25 May from 1:00-2:45. A program will be given by Vice
President George Shalimoff at that time.
Also under discussion is the possibility of a joint meeting with the
British Society of Russian Philately and making the meeting at Chicago the
Annual Meeting for the Rossica Society for 1986. Members also indicated
interest in having a Rossica luncheon or dinner in conjunction with
AMERIPEX '86.
Leon Finik then proceeded to give a program on the subject of Soviet Show
and Exhibition Cards. He stated that these cards started about 1934. Their
objective was to secure funds for the exhibition. They were not issued by the
government, but with its permission. They were limited to 100,000 copies
(sheets) each, and have the appearance of miniature sheets. Scme of them are
listed in the Soviet catalog.
Between 1968 and 1978 same local issues of these sheets got out of hand;
they were put out in very limited quantities with special cancellations. As a
result, the government stopped their issue. Now all are officially sanctioned.
The date and quantity printed are on the back of each card. There is no catalog
listing of them, and hundreds of different cards exist. There being no further
business to come before the meeting, it was adjoured and a swap session
followed.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon Torrey, Secretary pro tem
4

UKRAINPEX '85

The Ukrainian Philatelic and Numismatic Society proudly marked the 1000th
anniversary of the trident in the history of Ukraine by issuing a special
souvenir sheet at its first international meeting and show held on October
12-14, 1985 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The bicolor 7"x8" sheet depicts the
seventeen basic trident overprints used by the postal authorities in Ukraine

Katerynoslav I Katerynoslav II Kharkiv I Kharkiv II Kharkiv III

e ^ ^YKPAIHCbKA S
(I Kiev I Podillia I
A C C

SKiev II Poltava II
m I

Kiev I II Poltava I

S! 1 0 I Ol i T A 1 0 o0
Odessa I L -- Odessa VI I1.

S Odessa II Odessa III OdessaIV Odessa V

SC0103 YKPIHClhKX (DAX TEAICTIB I HYM13M&ATMKlI
UKRAINIAN PHILATELIC AND NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

5

during its period of independence. Trident overprints were approved for use in
overprinting Russian stamps by the Ministry of Posts of the Ukrainian National
Republic on August 20, 1918.

Wesley Capar of Springfield, Virginia took Best of Show, Gold and
President's Award at Ukrainpex '85. Other golds were awarded to Peter Valentine
of Leeds, England Tridents on Ramanovs and David P. Belesky of Athens, Georgia
Lemberg: A Postal Vignette of an Eastern European City. Vermeils were awarded
to Val Zabijaka for Ukrainian International Mails and Wesley Capar for Taras G.
Shevchenko--A Man of Freedom. Certified judges provided by "La Federation
Quebecoise de Philatelic" were Father L. A. Walker and P. J. Campbell. For the
first time, in celebration of the millennium of the trident, the highest award in
Ukrainian philately, The Golden Trident, was awarded to. Dr. Dominick Riccio for
his Grand Award winning exhibit of Carpatho Ukraine shown at many national
shows. Also, the second annual Julian G. Maksymchuk Award was given to Dr.
George Slusarczuk and the Montreal Ukrainian Philatelic and Numismatic Society
for their work in Ukrainian philately. The banquet speaker on October 12 was
Dr. Marko Antonovich, noted historian, who spoke on the history and background
of the trident. A special Canadian postal cancellation featuring the 1000th
anniversary of the trident was used during the show. Three different cachet
envelopes were available with the Canadian postal cancellation and a special
Society trident cancel.

Top honors at the show went to philatelic exhibits. The remaining
philatelic awards were as follows:

SILVER: "Carpatho Ukraine" Don B. Wynnyczok
"Tridents of Podolia" Val Zabijaka
"Polish Period of 1920-1939" Bohdan Pauk
"Exhibition Stamps in Ukraine" Paul B. Spiwak

SILVER BRONZE: "A Sampling of Hcmel Michael Shulewsky
Trident Overprints"
Local Issue of Cholmchyna" Iwan Perederyj
"Postal Usage of Ukraine's Lybamyr M. Hugel
1918-19 Issue"

BRONZE: "Carpatho Ukraine" Osyp Kokil
"History of Post in Ukraine" Maksym Chomiak
"19th Century Austrian Covers Michael Shulewsky
Used in Western Ukraine"
"Ukrainian Peoples Republic" Osyp Kokil
"Ukrainian Private Issues" Myroslav Baluszcak
"Ukrainian National Republic Mykola Tychoniw
Issues in Germany"

The Ukrainian Philatelic and Numismatic Society is an international group
of collectors with over 300 members throughout the world. Membership in the
Society is $12.00 per year with bimonthly newsletter, journal, mail auction, and
annual meeting/exhibits.

A limited number of cachets with First Day of Show cancellation and mint
copies of the souvenir sheet my be ordered by sending U.S.A. $1.50 per item to
Paul B. Spiwak, 58 Burrstone Road, New York Mills, New York 13417.

6

A FORGED YANOV/JANOW MARKING ON A FOLDED LETER

by George V. Shalimotf

[in collaboration with Mr. Vsevolod Popov of Nyack, New York,
Dr. James Mazepa of Oak Park, Illinois and Mr. Z. S. Mikulski
of St. Gallen, Switzerland]

When stamp collectors are offered an attractive folded letter or cover
bearing a nice copy of a desirable stamp, tied with a clear, colorful marking,
and with an expert's signature, our emotions predominate that say "I must have
this." But after the initial reaction it becomes time to use our acquired
philatelic judgement rather than let our emotions decide for us. A case history
of such an item is presented here.

Mr. V. Popov was offered by a correspondent in the USSR a fine folded
letter written on light blue paper, franked with a copy of Russia #1. The stamp
was tied to the letter with a bright red, boxed two-line bilingual marking,
YANOV (in transliterated Russian) on top and JANOW (in Polish) below. The
letter was addressed to Kiev and had an indistinct marking on the back as well
as remnants of a wax seal. A neatly stamped expert's mark "Z. Mikulski" was in
the lower right corner of the face's side. The letter within was written in
Polish. The overall appearance was stunning (Fig. 1).

* .. '4-

Fig. 1

Being an experienced philatelist, Mr. Popov had reservations about this
item and shared them with this writer. He felt the stamp was previously used
with a marking removed. He questioned the freshness of the cancellation ink,
the letter's date "18 May 18??" and the Mikulski expert's mark. He thought the
date in the text of the letter may have been "1849" and was altered to appear as
"1857" or "1859." Perhaps the expert's mark simply attested to the original
letter to which someone later glued on the stamp with a removed cancel and
applied the red bilingual marking on top (Fig. 2).

Of course, at this point one would say, "Let's ask the expert who allegedly
signed the letter. But that is too easy and there is much to be learned before
that step is taken.

7

Fig. 2

The letter was photographed with color film for reference prints. Black
and white photographs were made with contrast filters to study the stamp. The
letter was examined in ultraviolet, bright light, and daylight with a 7 power
magnifier and a variable 10-30 power microscope. Each examination added new
bits of information.

The written date as well as the text of the letter are rather stylized and
difficult to read (Fig. 3). It appears to be "18 Maya 1859," that is, 18 May
1859. The last numeral may be a "7," but is really hard to tell. Under
ultraviolet light as well as a microscope examination, there was no indication
of alternation, no change in ink appearance. The poorly legible "5" of the year
was not an altered "4." A number "4" was found within the text of the letter
which is quite distinctive and very different from any number in the date
(Fig. 4). So the conclusion here is the date was not altered, but due to the
handwriting we are not certain it is 1859.

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Although the stamp on the letter is cut close on two sides, the overall
size of the stamp still indicated it was a Russia #1 and not a trimmed
perforated stamp. It was easy to determine the stamp on this letter was reused.
By simply holding the letter up to a bright light, thin spots were visible.
Fig. 5 is a photograph taken on the inside of the letter with light shining
through the stamp and letter paper toward the camera lens. The thin spots are
the light areas. The shaded areas in the drawing in Fig. 6 show the detected
thin spots on the stamp.

8

j\ /

Fig. 5 Fig. 6

A black and white photograph was made of the stamp with a deep red filter.
This allows us to penetrate or "erase" the red marking and observe the stamp
under the marking (Fig. 7). With this photograph, the color photograph and the
original stamp under a microscope, it was easy to see traces of a previous
black circular marking, shown in the drawing in Fig. 8.

1 T 1
it I

Fig. 7 Fig. 8

Frmn the photograph and drawing it was possible to determine the size of
the black marking as about 17 nm. This is quite similar to some early Russian
as well as Polish markings on Russia #1 reported by Dr. James Mazepa in his
article "First Russian Stamps Used in the Kingdom ot Poland" published in The
American Philatelist, August 1984. This was quite exciting because there was
now the possibility this was an example of a letter with a reused stamp to
defraud the post. As indicated in the Lobachevski Catalog translation (Rossica
Journal #94/95, 1978), such items are rare and demand a premium.

The marking ink on this letter was a brilliant carmine red. The edges of
the marking were not sharp, and the ink readily penetrated through the paper

9

with a considerable amount of ink on the inside of the letter (Fig. 9).
However, in spite of the strong penetration, there was no hint of red on the
inside portion of the folded letter that would have been in contact with the
area in back of the stamp. This might suggest that the marking was fraudulent,
that it may have been applied to the opened letter rather than to the folded
letter. But not having seen a similar YANOV marking or knowing the
characteristics of a genuine marking and ink, this writer sought other
assistance.

Fig. 9

There was still the question of the expert's mark. The mark on the letter
was compared to marks of the same expert on several loose stamps in two
collections, where at least one of the signed stamps came directly from Mr.
Mikulski. The marking on the letter did not agree with the markings on the
stamps. In order not to compromise the integrity of Mr. Mikulski's genuine
mark, we will not show the closeup details that were evident in our photographs.
Readers are asked to accept the statement that the differences in the two
markings are obvious even to the casual observer. So it seemed dubious that
this was an authentic expert's mark on the letter, that it did not authenticate
even a letter to which this stamp and cancel were added later as Mr. Popov
proposed.

In spite of all this physical evidence that was observed, a definite answer
could not be made about the genuineness of the letter, and we turned to Rossica
member Dr. James Mazepa, a well-known collector and exhibitor with acknowledged
experience with this kind of material. All the information and photographs were
forwarded to him, with the exception of the original letter which was returned
to Mr. Popov long before. Dr. Mazepa's reactions and comments are given below.

"The stylized writing, especially the numeral "59" in the date, is not
uncommon for this period. The date does not appear "improved" in any way.

A May 1859 date is a rather late use of Russia #1 in Poland. More comnonly
used in 1859 were the perforated 12 stamps. But the use of a #1 is still a
possibility. However, it seems odd that a town canceler would be used on the
stamp in 1859. It was permitted to obliterate stamps in Poland with town
cancelers until the arrival of numeral cancelers in March 1858. One would
expect the numeral cancel #103 for Janow to be used here, since the numeral
cancelers were in use in 1859. It is not outside the realm of possibility that
only a town marking was used, but it would have been against existing postal
regulations.

10

The appearance of the red ink marking is disturbing. It appears too
watery, spreading easily into the paper, and it seems too bright, much like
current stamp pad ink. Old oil base inks with red pigments oftentimes oxidize
(undergo chemical change). This is very difficult to duplicate. The overall
appearance of the marking in the photographs is too flat, as if applied with a
rubber device. Could the migration of the ink be due to its oily content?
Examination of the actual letter would be necessary on this point.

The penetration ot the ink into the paper is excessive. Perhaps the lack
of additional smudging within the letter is due to a missing inserted page. The
text of the letter was too difficult to read to determine whether an additional
page was enclosed."

Dr. Mazepa continues that not having a YANOV/JANOW bilingual marking in his
collection, he searched his references and discovered that two bilingual
markings for YANOV/JANOW are listed in Ploski Znake Pocztowe, p. 58, Tom 1,
Ruch, Warszawa, 1960. One of these was similar to the mark on this letter but
not exactly the same. It is shown in Fig. 10.

"One asks the question 'If the mark is a forgery, where would a forger get
an example to copy?' The only other known reference with a similar appearing
marking is in an article titled "Russia Number One" by V. Rachmanov, published
originally in Collectors Club Philatelist, Vol. XXXII, No. 5, New York (Sept.
1953) and later reprinted in Rossica Journal No. 51, 1957 as well as elsewhere.
There are striking similarities between the illustration on the Rachmanov
article (Fig. 11) and the markings on this letter (as shown in Fig. 2).
Accurate measurements of the markings would be helpful.

HHOBb H
JANOW AN

Fig. 10 Fig. 11

The stamp is indeed a reused copy, as previously observed. Other clues are
the scraping of the blue center and the breaks in the oval frame line which
suggest some manipulation of the stanp. The reuse of cleaned stamps in this
period was not unusual (to defraud the post). But it also would not be unusual
to take a damaged letter and place a "better" postmark on it (to cheat a
collector).

As for the expert's mark, it would be best to ask the expert. Although the
mark on the letter does not match the examples on loose stamps, it may not be
conclusive since over the years perhaps several marks were used. If Mr.
Mikulski did not sign this letter it must be a fantasy. It he did sign it, I
find it difficult to believe he failed to notice the reuse of the stamp."

So Dr. Mazepa's cacments confirm some of the previous points and amplify
some of the doubts. He has taken the physical observation and added the very
important element ot postal history, namely the late use of this stamp, the late
use of the town marking to cancel it. And finally, he offers a possible example
for a forger to copy.
11

With all this, it became time to ask the expert, the one whose name appears
on the letter. All the photographs and the story were now sent to Mr. Z. S.
Mikulski in Switzerland. His comments are given below.

"The JANOW postmark as well as my signature are forged. I never saw this
cover! For such a rarity I always make a certificate (record) and photograph.

The forger took a wrong example to copy for this forged postmark. He used
the drawing in Mr. Rachmanov's article "Russian Number One" published in
Collectors Club Philatelist and reprinted in the Bulletin of the Polonius
Philatelic Society in February 1955. Rachmanov used the drawing made by the
late Mr. Goss. All of his drawings are incorrect. It is my opinion the forged
JANOW postmark is made by hand."

Mr. Mikulski included in his letter two Polaroid color photographs showing
a genuine Janow marking. One photo was an 1861 cover with two Poland #ls
canceled with a concentric ring marking. At the top of the cover away from the
stamps is a deep orange-red bilingual YANOV/JANOW postmark. The second
photograph was a closeup of this marking which we have rephotographed to show
here (Fig. 12). Note that it better resembles the drawing in Dr. Mazepa's
reference in Polski Znaki Pocztowe (Fig. 10) than it does the drawing in the
Rachmanov article (Fig. 11).

Mr. Mikluski doubted that this cover came from the USSR. He has seen many
faked covers and cancels of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union and, in his
opinion, they are made in the USA.

Fig. 12

So the story ends. All the doubts have been confirmed. There is agreement
as to a possible sample for the forger to copy as well. As for the origin of
the fake, whether made here or whether made there, some say these things are
much like a ping pong ball that bounces from one end to the other and back again
with relative ease. For the philatelist it is just as bad no matter where it
came from.

As we said earlier, it would have been easy to simply ask the expert in the
beginning. But this longer route, this collaboration, revealed many of the
things a collector should look for when examining an item. Not only should one
study the physical evidence but also the postal history, the use of stamps and
markings of the period, and the literature as well. All of these help us become
better philatelists.
12

RARE STAMPS OF THE RSFSR
(Lithographic Surcharges on Russia 217 and 224)

by O. K. Basov
[translated by David Skipton]

The RSFSR series lithographically surcharged with star, hammer, and sickle in
the center, letters at the points of the star and new denominations on the
pre-revolutionary stamps of Russia (Scott Nos. 216-224) is well-known to many
philatelists. With the exception of Russia 217 and Russia 224, on which the
surcharges were applied only by lithographic means, all have both litho and typo
surcharges. Russia 217 can be found with two sizes of design-16.3 x 22.5 mm and
16.8 x 23.0 mm, while Russia 224 has but one--16.3 x 22.5 nm.

We know that the Narkcapochtel' (Peoples' Ccamissariat of Posts and
Telegraphs) made no distinction in its stamp-issue accounting between perforate
and imperforate runs. According to the first "Catalog of RSFSR Postage Stamps"
printed in 1923, the total issue for Russia 217 was 493,000 while at the same time
the other denominations had runs of 9 to 40 million stamps. However, the 1976 and
1983 TsFA catalogs show a figure of 245,000 for Russia 217. What caused such a
considerable discrepancy? Apparently, it is a mistake. A similar inaccuracy is
also to be found with the "Levanevsky" stamp, Russia 309. In the 1976 and 1983
TsFA catalogs the total issue is put at 11,000, but according to official data
from the Peoples' Carmissariat for Communications, 40,000 of this stamp were
S issued.

One seldom encounters Russia 217 in exchanges with other philatelists, and
its miserly evaluation in the new 1983 TsFA catalog is surprising. At the very
least it must be 5-6 times more than that, especially in usect condition.
Characteristic peculiarities on Russia 217 include inverts, shifts, surcharges
that "lean" to one side, pairs in which one stamp lacks the surcharge, and those
in which parts of the surcharge are missing.

Russia 224 (20R/15k imperforate) is one of the rarest stamps of the USSR--not
every philatelist can say he's seen one. It can also be stated categorically that
no less than 90% of all Russia 224's in philatelists' hands are forgeries.

The story behind Russia 224's issue remains a mystery. In the 1923 "Catalog
of RSFSR Postage Stamps," mention of this stamp is missing, although it is
included in this surcharge series by "Soviet Philatelist" Nos. 5-6, 1923.
According to one version which I heard from S. Blekhman, this stamp was first
found by S. Krestovnikov at the beginning of 1923 on an official letter and shown
to F. G. Chuchin, and the surcharge proved to be authentic. A search for other
examples of this stamp turned up nothing. To avoid having to assign it a unique
status and somehow legitimize the find, the SFA appealed to the Peoples'
Commissariat of Posts and Telegraphs to issue additional stamps of the 20R/15k
imperforate value. The surcharge was applied with authentic cliches, very
carefully and well centered. There are no precise figures on how many were
overprinted, but a number of publications put the total at around 200. Later all
200 were passed on to the SFA. According to a different version, the surcharge
was applied at the request of the SFA because that value was issued only
perforate, while all the others appeared both peforate and imperforate. This
value did not get into circulation, all stamps having been given to the SFA.

13

A series of articles in "Filateliya SSSR" over the past few years assert that
Russia 224 was never officially approved for issue-its appearance was accidental
(several unperforated sheets). In "Filateliya SSSR" No. 2, 1980, V. Aloits
supplied the following data: "According to the information we have, Russia 224
never reached circulation. The surcharge was erronously applied to several sheets
of the 1917 imperforate 15k, which were quickly rejected as faulty and given to
the SFA..." The questions immediately arise: according to what information?
What caused the rejection and transfer of these stamps to the SFA? I cannot agree
with the assertion that Russia 224 was never postally used, and that it was
quickly turned over to the SFA for sale. Several cancelled Russia 224's in
foreign collections, plus a block of four belonging to the author provide the
basis for doubting the veracity of these claims. The block of four bears an
"Urzhum 12-3-23" cancel, and a beautiful used pair, for instance, was offered at
auction by the Robert A. Siegel firm (USA) on 20-22 November 1975 during the
"Polon" sale, as lot #212 (Fiaure 1). There can be no doubt that all these copies

Figure 1

did in fact go through the mails, and not as "philatelic productions." If
envelopes bearing these stamps had indeed been made up by philatelists, they would
certainly have been preserved in their entirety.

There are hardly any collectors who would remove an imperforate "Zeppelin"
USSR stamp of 1930 from its envelope. According to professor N. N. Mikhailov,
there was a Russia 224 on cover in the collection of the well-known philatelist
and professor G. E. Grum-Grzhimailo.

Of unused copies of Russia 224, a rare block of four in the collection of M.
V. Liphschutz (France) deserves attention, and there is an unused horizontal pair
in a Moscow collection, similar to the one formerly belonging to S.M. Blekhman.

14

As a rule, this rare stamp is found unused, that is, never having gone
through the mails, and thus there is reason to consider these unused stamps as
official reprints. They were intended strictly for the needs of philatelists, and
their use on envelopes is doubtful, in that immediately after their appearance
they were sold at considerably exaggerated prices. Taking into account all of the
information above, the following conclusion is reached: Russia 224 in used
condition may take its rightful place in the catalog under a basic number, as it
is the first official issue and can be found only in this state; second, Russia 224
in unused condition is an official reprint, a second issue which must be assigned
an auxiliary number.

One fact which stands out is that lately Russia 224 has frequently appeared
at auction in Western Europe and the USA, for the most part mint copies. I cannot
agree with A. Rosselevich's statement in "Russian Philatelist" No. 5, 1964, that
the total run for Russia 224 consisted not of 200 stamps but of 5-10 sheets
(500-1,000 stamps). This is of course incorrect. The fact of the matter is that
in looking through various firms' auction catalogs where Russia 224 has been
offered, one is convinced that a good half of these stamps are fakes, ranging from
crude to skillful. Here are some examples. In the very same "Robert A. Siegel
Auction Catalog" there is, right next to a beautiful pair (lot #212), a crude
forgery of an unused copy with an "expertization" mark! Another example. In the
big Rossica Society auction of 19 November 1983, a good unused copy (lot #241)
stands next to a forgery with an unreadable cancel (lot #242).

We will examine the surcharge in somewhat more detail. A surcharge on Russia
224 is identical in every respect to that on Russia 217. It was applied
lithographically in March, 1923, with a thick, sooty ink of bluish-tinted black
color in the same luster as the stamp itself. Surcharge dimensions: 20.5 mm high
by 15 mm (star) or 14 mm (P.20P.) No inverts or errors exist. On rare occasions
a cancelled Russia 227 is found with two overprints, 40R and 20R, with the second
surcharge (20R) inverted (The "France-USSR" Philatelic Circle catalog, 1969,
#198c). It must be noted that the thick, bluish-tinged black surcharge is
generally characteristic of unused copies. Because the ink of the surcharge is
very unstable and washes away or smears even under light pressure, used stamps may
not have such a thick black shade, but rather more of a gray-black. It is this
very instability of the ink which tempts forgers, since the "4" on a Russia 227
can be removed chemically or mechanically and a "2" substituted. There are many
other forgeries of this rare stamp, but that is a theme for a special article.
Several fakes of Russia 224 are described in "Soviet Philatelist" No. 4, 1928, p.
18, and in a number of foreign publications. Unfortunately, Ya. Vovin described
only the more crude, primitive forgeries of Russia 224 in "Expertization Handbook
for Soviet Postage Stamps," ones which could fool only the rankest beginner. The
main features of an authentic surcharge were only partially listed, and
illustration 30c shows a rather poor reproduction that differs considerably from
the original, and does not always coincide in detail with the description of the
authentic surcharge.

The simplest and surest means of determining the authenticity of a Russia 224
surcharge is a comparison of it under ultraviolet light with a Russia 217, both in
the [design] elements and in the composition of the surcharge's ink.

Unfortunately, not a single copy of a Russia 224 was shown at the recent
international philatelic exhibition in Moscow, "SOTs-FILEhKS-83." Perhaps among
philatelists there can be found some owners of this stamp who have copies bearing
clean, clear cancellations. Their information would help to clarify the story of
this rare stamp.

15

A RUSSO JAPANESE WAR PRISONER OF WAR CARD

by Gordon Torrey

The card illustrated below is the first of its kind seen by the writer. It
is a prisoner of war card from a Russian prisoner held by the Japanese in the
Russo-Japanese War of 1905. Its survival may be largely attributable to its
being sent to France rather than Russia. The message on it tells little other
than that the sender is a prisoner of war. The key to the story lies in the
Japanese markings. A friend, who knows Japanese philately, provided me with a
translation of the various handstamps.

At the top of the non-
picture side of the card under
the words "Carte Postale" is
the Japanese inscription CARTE POSTALE
"1905 May 27." The "box" at 1
the upper right reads "Domestic rJe
1.5 sen-Foreign 4 sen."
Printed just below it is the i
word "postcard." Just to the
left of the printed inscription J
there is written in Japanese
"To France." The circlar
Japanese marking at the left is
the city datestanp of i31NNOSljd
Fukoishyama and the oval a .'to
marking below it is the censor- ______
ship marking "Ishyama" in purple.
In red above the oval and to the
left of "Fukoishyama" city mark
are the Japanese characters for
"Prisoner of War Post."

Lo, The circular marking showing at
.-4 g JV^ -' -^"5Y -",,,- -the bottom is the "kuku"

0",4t ( bottom is the three line purple
T .'/ /-4, inscription in French "Service
S M /^ des Prisonnieres de Guerre.

On the view side of the
card there is the date
19-23 V 05 (19-23 May 1905),
the intitials of the sender
and his address at the camp.

16

ANT-3

by Patrick Campbell

One of the first stamp designs that really aroused my interest in
aerophilately was that of Scott Nos. C10 and C11 of Russia, depicting a
relatively small biplane in flight over a map of the world (see examples above).
The catalogs told me that the designer of the stamp was 0. Amosova, that there
were values of 10-kopeks and 15-kopeks, and that 200,000 of each stamp were
printed.

Most catalogs stated that the stamps were lithographed, which they were,
but Gibbons and Michel chose typographed, which they weren't! The stamps were
unwatermarked and perforated 12x12. The best known variety is the "broken
seven" in the date 1927 in the lower right hand corner of some copies of the
10-kopek value, as shown in Fig. 1. The variety is generally priced at about
four times the value of the basic stamp, although it is not all that camon.

I I'

Fig. 1

H. L. Aronson, in the Russian-American Philatelist No. 10 of 1943 says that
the stamps were issued in sheets of 80, in two vertical panes of 40 arranged
5x8. He says that the "broken seven" occurs in the 26th position in the upper
right sheet of the 10-kopek value, but he could not find a lower sheet to
examine. Aronson also mentions a white dot over the letter "A" in the bottom
inscription of the 26th stamp, a broken line under the date on the 20th stamp,
and a white dot under the fifth "n" on the 27th stamp of the same upper sheet.
These seem to be the only reported anomalies.

Now things started getting a little more interesting, for the catalogs
stated that the two stamps were issued in September 1927 (perhaps 1 September)
to comaemorate the first International Air Mail Congress at The Hague in
Holland, and Scott said that this conference had been initiated by the USSR.
Extensive literature research in Flight, The Aeroplane, Aero Digest, Flugsport,
Flugwocke, ZFM, and several French and Russian magazines resulted in a blank.
The only reference found was in "The Air Tourist Guide to Europe," where it said
that, in August of 1927, the airline Deruluft took part in a conference at The
Hague, where the World Postal Union was considering the question of air mail.
Further information is solicited.

17

Research on the aircraft itself proved more fruitful, for it was soon
identified as a Tupolev ANT-3, first built in 1925. It was a two seater
sesquiplane (a biplane with the span of the upper wing greater than that of the
lower wing). It was all-metal and had the corrugated aluminum skin that Andrei
Tupolev used on several aircraft (including his second design, the ANT-2). This
type of construction was stiff and light, and was pioneered by Junkers. It was
used in some of the aircraft built in the Moscow/Fili plant, under license from
Junkers. This factory was a result of the Treaty of Rapallo of 1922. There
were two aeronautical facets of this treaty, arising partly from the banning of
serious aeronautical work in Germany under the Treaty of Versailles, and partly
from the lack of aeronautical know-how in the new Soviet state. One of the
results was the airbase at Lipetsk, which will be covered in a separate article,
and the other was setting up a factory at Moscow/Fili in October 1922, with
several hundred German workers. Junkers moved out in 1929, and the Russians
took over, designating it as Factory No. 22. This is another story, introduced
here only because of its influence on the design philosophy of the ANT-2 and
ANT-3.

Fig. 2
A.N.T.-3 Biplane RR-SOV
(Napier Lion Engine)

The ANT-3 was designed early in 1924 with both military and civil uses in
mind. The prototype was rolled out in July of 1925; it was powered by a 450-HP
French Lorraine-Dietrich engine. First flown by V. N. Philippov in August, the
prototype was ferried from NOA, Khondinka (the Scientific Text Aerodrome) for
flight testing which lasted until April of 1926. The production version had the
Aviatrust M-5 engine, a Russian-built copy of the American Liberty; the
prototype could be distinguished from the production version by the change from
"N" shaped interplane struts to a "K" shape. The military version was
designated R-3, and it had two machine guns and a small bambload of 440 pounds;
it could be identified by the circular frontal radiator.

The civil version was intended as a fast mail carrier, and two of these,
with registrations RR-SOV and RR-INT, later achieved some measure of fame. One
was also featured on a 1977 Soviet stamp.

18

RR-SOV was a ANT-3 fitted with the famous 450-HP Napier "Lion" engine, a
water-cooled engine with three banks of four cylinders in the form of a broad
arrow, instead of the usual "Vee" layout. The author of this article was
fortunate enough to be employed in the factory where the Lion was manufactured,
still in production in 1940, for motor torpedo boats. RR-SOV made a tour of the
European capitals between 31 August and 2 September of 1926, starting at Moscow,
and calling at Konigsberg, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Vienna, Prague, and Warsaw, then
back to Moscow. The 6,510 km. flight was accarplished in 34 hours and 15
minutes flying time over three days, averaging about 120 m.p.h.

This flight was canemorated by a
10-kopek airmail stamp of 1977 (Scott C111-
Fig. 3) which shows RR-SOV over a map of
Europe, showing the cities visited; perhaps
it is just by chance that the cities of Berlin
and Warsaw are obscured by the aircraft.
This stamp was one of a set of six issued
16 August 1977, portraying Soviet aircraft
from 1917 to 1930; designer of the stamps
was E. Aniskin. They were printed in a
combination of lithography and engraving,
were all perforated 12x11 and measured
32.5x47.5 nm. There are no known varieties.
Fig. 3

It seems that there was at least one problem on the tour, as RR-SOV was
taken into the Letov factory on Prague for same repair work, or so we are led to
understand. The pilot was Mikhail Grcmov and the co-pilot M. Radzevich; the
fuselage bore the words "Aviakhim CCP-Proletariat" in large letters, accompanied
by a Soviet coat-of-arms. The word Aviakhim indicated that the flight was
arranged by "The Friends of the Red Air Fleet," see Rossica No. 89, page 49.

A recent acquisition in a dealer's junk-box
was the label shown in Fig. 4. The aircraft is
clearly an ANT-3 and probably one with the M-5
engine (Liberty). The purpose of the label and
the open space in the middle is unknown. Apart
from the corrugated aluminum structure, the
ANT-3 was unusual for the simple wing bracing
system, and for the strange triangular shape
of the fuselage. The engine was cooled by two
egg-like objects slung either side of the nose; __ _
these were type "D" heat exchangers designed in j3SPAwqOm noWTOr
France by Lamblin. PAR AVION

Fig. 4

It is of interest to note that Andre Tupolev worked in Douglass (Santa
Monica) briefly in the 1930s, and at Ford in Detroit, studying industrial

19

methods. The pilot of RR-SOV, Mikhail Gramov, obtained world renown in July of
1937 when he and his crew flew from Moscow to San Jacinto, California non-stop
in a Tupolev ANT-25 (see article in Rossica, No. 86/87).

The second well-known ANT-3 was registered RR-INT and it was a standard
mail plane with a 400 horsepower M-5 engine, apparently chosen because the Lion
was too expensive, and with Lamblin C-type radiators instead of the frontal
radiators of the military R-3 version. RR-INT was prepared for long-distance
flights and given the name "Mache Otvet" or "Our Reply." This machine flew from
Moscow to Tokyo and back in August and September of 1927, a distance of 22,000
km; the pilot was Semyon Shestakov and his mechanic, D.V. Fufayev. The outward
flight took 153 flying hours, quite a respectable performance for that time,
averaging over 2,000 km. per day in adverse weather conditions, and in an
elapsed time of 11 days (20 August to 1 September). The route flown was
Moscow-Saropol-msk-Novosibirk-Krasnoyarsk-Irkutsk-Chita-Blagoveschensk-Korea--
Yokohama-Tokyo. The crew were awarded the Order of the Red Banner (see Scott
No. 1037) on their return.

It is always difficult to establish reliable production figures for Soviet
aircraft, but it appears that the prototype was designed by A. N. Tupolev of the
design team known as AGOS, and seems to have been built in the TsAGI shops or at
GAZ-5.

About 30 ANT-3s were built at the GAZ-5 factory in Moscow, and a further 79
at GAZ-22 (Fili). With the prototype (Lorraine-Dietrich engine) and RR-SOV
(Napier Lion engine) it is probable that a total of about 101 were bult between
1925 and 1929. These figures include both the ANT-3 and R-3 military ) versions
of course. Later attempts to improve performance by installation of a
500-horsepower M-17 engine (a license-built German BMW-VI) were apparently
unpromising; this version was identified as the ANT-10 militaryy R-7); it's
successful competitor was M.N. Polikarpov's R-5.

-For it's time, the ANT-3 was a very successful design, a tribute to the
early skill of Andrei Tupolev, and one of the first modern Soviet-designed
aircraft to be publically exhibited and demonstrated outside the Soviet Union.

Tupolev ANT-3 Aircraft:
Napier Lion V

Summary of Characteristics of RR-SOV

Characteristics
Span 13 m. (43 ft. 5 in.)
Length 9.50 m. (32 ft. 2 in.)
Wing Area 38 sq. m. (408 sq. ft.)
Empty Weight 1394 kg. (3073 lbs.)
Payload Weight 1006 kg. (2218 Ibs.)
Take-Off Weight 2400 kg. (5291 lbs.)
Performance
Max. Speed 226 k.p.h. (140 m.p.h.)
Cruise Speed 185 k.p.h. (115 m.p.h.)

20

THE RUSSIAN FIELD POST OFFICES
DURING THE AUSTRO/RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN HUNGRY IN 1849

by Ian W. Roberts

In March 1949 the Austrian government was concerned that its own forces
would not be able to defeat the Hungarian rebel armies without outside
assistance. After considerable discussion and hesitation, Felix Schwartzenberg,
the Austrian Prime Minister, appealed to Nicholas I, the Russian tsar, for aid
which was granted without delay. The final details were worked out at a meeting
in Warsaw between Franz Joseph, the Austrian Emperor, Nicholas I, and their
advisors in May.

While these negotiations were taking place, an urgent request for aid to
relieve the Austrian forces near Vienna was made in April. Prince Paskevich,
the Russian Governor General of Poland and Comnander-in-Chief of the Russian
Army, authorized the despatch of a composite infantry division commanded by
General Panyutin by rail from Krakow to Austria (via Prussia). This division
was initially quartered at Ungarisch Hradisch (Uherske Hradiste) in Moravia.
After the threat to Vienna had passed, Panyutin's division remained with the
Austrian army commanded by Haynau and fought with it throughout the campaign.
It eventually linked up with the main Russian force in August in Southern
Hungary.

The main Russian force entered Austria (Galicia) in May and crossed the
Carpathians into Northern Hungary (Slovakia) in early June. This army was
divided into two columns. Two other small groups remained in Moravia and
Galicia to protect the rear and lines of communication. Another force divided
into two columns entered Transylvania to assist the Austrian forces fighting
there from the pricipalities of Moldavia and Wallachia which had been occupied
by the Russians in the summer of 1848. (An earlier Russian intervention made at
the beginning of 1849 had been unsuccessful and the Russian forces had been
compelled to withdraw.) The total strength of the combined Russian forces was
about 192,000 men with about 60,000 horses. The campaign lasted about eight
weeks and ended with a complete victory for the Austro-Russian forces, although
the main part of the Hungarian Army under General Gorgey surrendered to the
Russians on 1st/13th August.

One of Paskevich's main concerns before the campaign began was to ensure
that his troops had adequate supplies and transport. The Austrians had agreed
to be responsible for supplies but, in the event, proved unable to do so and
Paskevich was left to make his own arrangements. One of his expedients was to
authorize the purchase of large numbers of oxen which could be used for haulage
before being slaughtered to provide meat.

Paskevich could rely on the newly constructed railway from Warsaw to
Krakow. This single track line connected at Krakow with the Austrian/Prussian
railway from Vienna which had been opened in October 1847. (It was not until
1856 that it was possible to travel from Krakow to Vienna without passing
through Prussia). The despatch of mail and newspapers had begun in February
1848. From Krakow onwards transport was by horse and cart and Paskevich began
to build up a large transport corps.

To assist him in his task, Prince Golitsyn, the Chief Post Master in
Poland, agreed to release 200 vehicles and 400 horses from the normal postal

21

service in Poland. In addition, he was authorized to purchase 150 other
vehicles and horses. Paskevich also agreed to the use of conscript soldiers as
drivers. The vehicles were modified by being provided with tarpaulins mounted
on posts, so that they could be used for carrying supplies, such as oats for the
horses. In all, four so-called postal transport companies were formed.

In the convention drawn up in Warsaw on 29 May/10 June 1849 by the Austrian
and Russian governments, the following articles dealt with postal matters:

(a) Article XI

In the Headquarters there will be sufficient numbers of carriages with
harnesses and postillions for the military post intended to link
Headquarters with the ordinary post stations. If the Russian army advances
in a direction where there is no regular postal service, Austria will
supply gratis relay horses for the military post as far as the nearest
postal route.

(b) Article XII

In addition, Austria will supply gratis:
(a) [Lists other services]
(b) Regular postal services for the free transmission of letters
and official packets.

Thus the onus for supplying postal services to the Russian forces while
they were operating inside Austrian territory rested with the Austrian
authorities. They themselves had set up their own field post office for their
forces (First Army Corps) operating in Hungary as early as December 1848. In
May 1849 they opened further offices for the Second & Third Army Corps, as well
as the Southern Army which was operating in Southern Hungary (Croatia/Slavonia).
These offices were closed at the end of 1849.

A number of the Russian officers who took part in the campaign wrote their
memoirs and same of these contain references to the field post. After the
campaign was over, an artillery officer wrote from Warsaw in a letter dated 25
September/7 October 1849:

"It was not possible to write from Hungary, because of the bad organization
of the Field Post Office which most naively requested us not to burden it
with correspondence."

Another officer noted in his diary on 14/26 August 1849:

"Arrived at Grosswardein (Oradea, now in Romania) one day before the
arrival of the division. Call in at the Field Post Office and find a huge
roam, filled to a depth of half an arshin (about 14 inches) with letters
in disorder, not sorted into division and corps. In addition, there are
also special packages which have not been opened. Stayed in this chaos
for several hours and tracked down seven letters to Semyakin (a Russian
general) from his wife." (Paskevich had established his Headquarters at
Grosswardein at the end of the campaign.)

Finally, in a lengthy account of the campaign published in a book entitled
"Four Wars" by P. V. Alabin (Samara 1888) the author who was adjutant of the

22

Kamchatka Jaeger Regiment stationed in the rear area of Kaschau (Kosice, now in
Slovakia) related the following incident from July 1849:

"On the orders of the General Staff all our communications with
Headquarters were cut. Henceforth, until a special order was received, it
was forbidden to send out not only convoys of convalescents, supply and
artillery transports, but it was ordered to stop the posts traveling to
Headquarters, even the couriers. The result was that our society was
enlarged by interesting persons traveling from Saint Petersburg and
Warsaw, from whom we heard a lot of news. Then, making use of the ban on
further movement, the officials and postmen who were despatching the post
from Russia in several transports, handed them over to our safe-keeping in
the quantity of several tens of carts. For about three days we were busy
sorting the post, trying to decide what should be sent to Headquarters at
the first opportunity and what would be sent back on the route to Dukla
(in Galicia) to the troops stationed in that area, and finally to
determine what was ours, the troops in the Kaschau garrison. Happily our
labours were not in vain: we had the pleasure of finding both letters and
newspapers addressed to us. It is understandable with what joy we threw
ourselves on them, not having received any news about our dearest since we
had left Russia."

The above extracts show all too clearly that the postal service to the
Russian forces did not function satisfactorily during the campaign. In his
well-known handbook on the Russian post, S. V. Prigara records no information
about Russian mail during the campaign, apart from stating that the Russian
forces had to make use of the Austrian Field Post Offices.

It is the author's hope that this short article will help to clarify the
background to the functioning of the Russian Field Post Office during the
campaign. His own efforts to find a specimen letter sent to a Russian officer
or despatched to Russia have so far proved unsuccessful. He would be very
interested to hear more from any reader who can provide any further information
on this little-known episode in the history of the Russian Field Post Office.

NEW MEMBERS

1212 Elchonan Gendler, 917 So. Shenandoah, Los Angeles, California 90035

1213 Dr. James C. Phillips, 1694 So. Park Avenue, Titusville, Florida 32780

1214 Michael F. Penovich, P.O. Box 360, Crystal River, Florida 32629

1215 Karl C. Gebert Apartado 1434, Lima 1, Peru

1216 Karl Ludwig Leonhardt, Isestrasse 121, D2000 Hamburg B,
Federal Republic of Germany

1217 John J. Geisner, Jr., 600 Highland Drive, Perkasie, Pennsylvania 18944

1218 Anders Nylander, Vanadisvagen 34, 5 tr, 113 46 Stockholm, Sweden

23 (continued page 46)

RUSSIAN FIELDPOSTS IN THE BALTIC STATES 1939-1941

by August Leppa

General Background: According to my knowledge, the fieldpost of the Red Army is
scarcely dealt with in philatelic literature. The organization of the fleet in
the Baltic Sea has been tackled but without connections to actual covers or
cards. This story is based on a handful of items, and so it remains highly
preliminary; but the first article on every subject has to be written sometime,
and I hope the questions raised will be answered by other colleagues.

The scarcity of fieldpost items from the Baltic States at the beginning of
the Second World War is due to several factors:

1. The number of Soviet troops in the Baltic republics was not very extensive
at the beginning, i.e., in 1939-1940. Exact figures are not available, and
other figures are still discussed by historians. At the very beginning the
number of troops was limited to 75,000.

2. The national armies were incorporated into the Red Army in late 1940, and I
suppose they got the right to use fieldpost only after that. If so, then there
is barely half a year for mail that was addressed to the same area. Original
Russian troops sent their letters to their homes, and these items are probably
not in the philatelic market.

3. During the German occupation, covers revealing a Red Army relationship were
most likely destroyed because such items were not excellent testaments of
loyalty to the German administration.

Several covers or wrappers (those common triangular lettersheets without any
cover) which I have seen were found by Finnish soldiers in the Eastern Karelia
or in the area ceded to USSR during the Finnish offensive in 1941.

Political and Miltary Development: The troops of the Red Army occupied Eastern
Poland during the latter half of September 1939 and at the same time the
district of Vilnius or Litwa Srodkowa, Central Lithuania. In October 1939 part
of this area, including Vilnius, was ceded to Lithuania. Perhaps Soviet
occupation forces left this area which was given back to Lithuania, but
negotiations about military bases in the Baltic republics were already under
way.

Basic principles of the base rights were clear without any talks, and the
negotiations concerned only the locations and upper limits of the number of
Soviet troops. The total number to be located in Estonia was limited to 25,000
men. The first units crossed the border on the 18th of October. These troops
were located in Paldiski, Haapsalu, on the islands of Saaremaa and Hiumaa, and
at same air bases. The number of troops located in Latvia was limited to
30,000, and they entered the country a bit later at the beginning of November.
Locations initially were Liepaja, Ventspils, Priekule, and by the Sound of
Irben. In Lithuania the number of troops was smaller, 20,000, and they were
mainly situated around Kaunas, i.e., in Nauja-Vileika, Alytus, Prienai and
Calzynai.

24

Except for same events the troops remained isolated and avoided contact
with the national population. Opinions about the activity and number of Soviet
forces during the sunner 1940 differ a bit. Some Western historians insist that
more troops were infiltrated into the still independent republics and that they
participated in the political events during the sumner months. In any case, the
three republics became Soviet republics at the beginning of August 1940.
National armies were united with the Red Army in the autumn of 1940.

Triangle Cachets: The following tentative conclusions are based on material
used in 1941 with one exception from December 1940. All items sent from troops
are stamped with a triangular cachet. Usually the text in the double triangle
reads "Red Army letter taxfree," and inside the triangle there are three letters
"N.K.O."

All pieces of mail which have some connection with the Baltic area bear the
letters N.K.O., if any, but on the other hand a couple of other envelopes show
the letters "O.P.B." Do these letters refer to same military district? With my
poor knowledge of the Russian language I don't dare make any definite guesses.

The Red Fleet probably used separate cachets. Unhappily, the only evidence
is one cover from Ventspils (Figure 1). Ventspils was a marine base and this
can be read also in the triangle "Besplatnoje Krasnoflotsk K.B.F."

Figure 1

S Lettering inside the double triangle reads "Red Fleet" instead of "Red Army."
Also here can be found a second unsolved problem. Inside the triangle there
might be the address of the sender: "p/ya 378," i.e., P. O. Box 378. This
cachet type can also be found on infantry covers.

25
fZ4ur 1
L~tein isieth dube ranlered 2"ed let" nc ea k "ed41y
Also ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~t heecnb on eodusle polm nietetinl h

.. .. .... .
..-- G-1
..... ... .r ..

I-

Figure 3

26

There are at least three subtypes if this definition is accepted on the
basis of six covers:
a) P. O. Box 15 (Figure 2)
This cover was used in Ulenurme near Tartu in Estonia and gives no name for
the location whereas the next three also indicate the location.
b) P.O. Box 20, Kuzemkino (Figure 3)
This is an Estonian pictorial cover sent from Leningrad 316, p/ya 13 and
with cachet box 20, p/o Kuzemkino in February or January 1941. It may be
worth noticing the other military address in Figure 5: Leningrad 306.
c) P.O. Box 71, Kuressaare (Figure 4)
A May 1941 cover from Kuressaare to Harlu. The cancellation of the civilian
post office Kuressaare has been used and there is also a civilian receiving
cancellation, bilingual Harlu (in Russian and Finnish) on the reverse.

f14"W N. #

Figure 4

d) P.O. Box 742, ... Polotsk (Figure 5)
A cover from the town of Kaunas, Box 753/B to a box address in Leningrad.
Canceled in Kaunas and with a triangle P.O. Box 742 (go) r. Polotsk."
Polotsk is not very far away from the Latvian border but its is not in
Latvia or Lithuania. The cover is canceled in Kaunas on the 1st of February
but the receiving cancellation on the back is the 17th of February. Both
triangles in Figures 1 and 5 are crude in appearance.

27

"o ",fi. H "20

Figure 5

"* . ,,.-, .

Figure 5

"I ''' 4 28
i- 4L, &A / 0

Figure 6

The third type indicates directly the unit of the sender, e.g., "182 Division,
Artillery Regiment," which has been included inside the double triangle. This
182nd division was formerly Estonian and located around Tartu. Parts of this
division were stationed also in Ulenurme.

With this meager material more questions are raised than answered. For
example, all items sent from Estonia have small P.O. Box numbers (between 15 and
71) whereas other numbers 378, 428, 742, and 753 refer to items from Latvia and
Lithuania. There is not enough material for firm conclusions, but it seems
likely that numbers were not distributed randomly.

Figure 7

It would be easier to locate certain addresses if P.O. Box numbers had been used
only in one place each. Besides the box number there is usually a letter added,
e.g., "litr.g" (Figure 6), or extra numbers like "428-38" (Figure 7). Figure 6
shows a sender's address as p/ya 17 g from Tallinn to Viipuri 13.VII.1941. The
arrival postmark on the back is the new bilingual Viipuri. The letter was
mailed at a time when the German offensive was still rapidly advancing almost
halfway between Tallinn and Parnu. The railway line via Narva to Leningrad was
still open. Figure 7 is an April 1941 folded letter sheet to Kaunas P/O 2,
p/ya 428-38. It is folded into a triangle shape with an added piece of paper
posted on the front on which is handwritten "Saugojimu 18.IV ??" (arrival?).
[Ed. note: This paper is folded back in the illustration to show the address.]
I supposrethere are several possible hypotheses: box number may refer to a
location or to a bigger unit and the subnumber or letter to a subunit, e.g.,
P.O. Box 17 K and 17 G have both been used in Haapsalu in May 1941 (Figure 8).
Figure 8 is a May 1941 cover from Haapsalu to Viipuri in Karelia. It shows the
sender's address p/ya 17 K, a fieldpost cachet with letters N.K.O. and has an
old Viipuri machine cancellation as an arrival cancellatioonon the reverse.

29

\, INHCb o\

Figure 8

In July, 17 G can also be seen on a cover with open address of Tallinn
(Figure 6). Maybe Haapsalu was already evacuated. In Estonian Philately,
Volume 28 (1982) it is stated that P.O. Box 39 is located in Varska.

Cancellations of the civilian post offices can be seen and the "fieldpost
office" cancellations are not dated, with one exception where the date is added
manually. This implies still one more question about the use of standard dated
FPO cancellations: Did they begin use only after the war had started in 1941,
or are all these items exceptions in the sense that, in the Baltic area,
fieldpost used the civilian mail system?

Figure 9 is a curiosity--a triangle from the 1950s. The double triangle
contains "Matroskoje...tax free letter" i.e., marine mail, but the address is
already a bigger number, Box 90696. In this case the envelope bears two
different cachets.

Hopefully these questions will interest some colleagues so much that they will
provide more information on this topic. I'll repeat the problems already stated
and add some new ones:

30

1) The meaning of N.K.O. and its relation to the Baltic area.
2) If marine cachets can be distinguished, is this true for air force units
too?
3) Does a P.O. Box refer to a unit or a location or are both explanations
possible?
4) Is it possible that items were canceled far away from the place where the
sender was stationed?
5) Are small box numbers used in Estonia and higher ones elsewhere?
6) What is the meaning of additional letters or numbers in connection with box
numbers. Later, were they used to indicate subunits under the same
fieldpost number?
7) Why are same civilian cancellations so canmon on covers and in general what
is the role of the civilian mail system in this connection?
8) Some triangles are crude and scme already a bit more sophisticated. Are
same cachets made locally and same by sane central place?
9) What was the system like in 1939-40 since this story is based on items used
in 1941?

Figure 9
Sources:
"Leppa, A. Puna-armeija Baltiassa 1939-1941, Kerfil 2/1984.
Myllyniemi, S. Baltian kriisi 1938-1941.
Ojaste, E. Postalische Entwertungen, Vermerke, Stempel und Zettel in Estland
1918-1944, Eesti Filatelist 28/1982.
Ojaste, E. Estonian Postal Censorship during the Period of Soviet Unions
Military Bases 1939-1940, Eesti Filatelist 30/1984.

31
.*w >y.

Figure*0 9
Sources;a
Lepa, unaannij Batissa193-141,Keril2/184

SO YOU WANT TO BE A POSTMAN

by David Skipton

Much has been written about the hard life of Russian postmen during the
19th and 20th centuries. Low pay, long hours, poor housing, and no respect were
all parts of the job, but the boredom and monotonous work were sometimes
disrupted by events that were quite unexpected. It was not just that the job
was a deadend profession, and that all the postman could look forward to was a
life of borderline poverty--on occasion it could be downright dangerous.

Bazilevich wrote about careless postillions who rode their country routes
alone and ended up being same wolfpack's repast. City postmen were frequently
chased by the wolves' domestic cousins, dogs--not the smaller varieties usually
encountered by today's postmen, but big ones, with reinforcements. Many a
postal employee making his rounds had to suddenly drop everything and head for
the nearest tree or door as the neighborhood pack bore down on him with violent
intent.

So get a nice, safe job in a railway mailcar, you say? That had its share
of drawbacks too.

"CHITA. On the Tarbagatai run, some malefactors stopped the mail
train and uncoupled the baggage and mail cars. The latter was looted.
One postal official was wounded, and the passengers were fired upon.
A gendarme and armed workers have been sent from Tarbagatai and the
nearest siding, and a locomotive with a calvary sergeant major and
guards has been dispatched from a Petrovsky Zavod."
(From "Russkiya Vyedcmosti," 18 May 1913.)

If it wasn't gun-toting thieves, it was something else, like the great
train wreck on the night of March 9/10, 1913. Mail-and-baggage train No. 9 from
Voronezh on the Moscow-Kiev-Voronezh line plowed head-on into a freight train
from Kiev. Not only did the crash "force the passengers to awake," but some
lubrication oil in the baggage car caught fire, creating a panic among the
passengers (who by now were fully awake) and forced the postal official to throw
out all the mail and government-owned equipment in frantic haste. All the mail
was saved, which was more than could be said for the freight train and 7
unfortunate individuals. (From "Russkiya Vyedomosti," 17 March 1913.)

So how about a nice, cushy position in a sturdy post office, one that
doesn't move or collide with other post offices? Take your choice from the
following two examples:

"FIRE. Nizhnii Novgorod. During a severe storm, 105 structures
including the post-and-telegraph branch office, the volost
administration building, and the archives of an insurance agent
burned down in the village of Buturlino, Knyaginino district."
(From "Russkiya Vyedanosti," 7 June 1913.)

"TUNNEL. Irkutsk. On Post Office Street the police discovered an
underground way more than 49 feet long and leading toward the post
office. The house where the tunnel began was occupied by Chinese,
54 of whom were arrested."
(From "Russkiya Vyedamosti," 1 October 1913.)
32

Keeping on the move was no better, even with weapons and friends with same.
"On 17 October 1883, (Petr) Antonov led a gang...in an unsuccessful attack on a
group of postal carriers on the Khrakov-Chuguev road. The next attempt occurred
only a week later, the target being a heavily guarded shipment containing some
thirty thousand rubles. Unlike the first group, these carriers put up armed
resistance; in the gun battle which followed, Berdichevskii was shot to death by
one of the postal guards.

Robbery and shootings dominated narodovol'tsy activities in the South. The
Kiev organization's brother-and-sister team, Genrietta and Eduard Kosarzhetskii,
was seized while waiting in ambush for a Kiev to Chernigov postal shipment.

"Neither police pressure in Kharkov and Odessa nor growing opposition
in narodovol'tsy ranks to open battles with the government dissuaded
Ivanov from planning yet another attack on a postal money carrier--this
time near Voronezh on 17 November 1884. Once again, the man whom
Pobedonostsev called 'the sworn enemy of the government' took no direct
part in the assault, leaving its leadership to Antonov. The attack
provoked a bloody gun battle in which Antonov killed a postman and
escaped with a small sum of money." (From Norman M. Naimark's
"Terrorists and Social Democrats," Harvard U. Press, 1983, pp. 94-96.)

At least the poor postman could take some comfort from and find solace with
his family, right? Nope. Kids contributed to the downfall of at least one
postillion, whose sad story is presented here.

"Several people from the Devich'e Pole area informed the Moscow Postal
Director that the children of postillion Titov, who lived in that area,
were playing with letters that had most likely been taken from their
father. Following up on this tip, an official was sent to Titov's
apartment. There he found that private correspondence supposed to be
delivered by Titov had indeed fallen into the hands of his children,
and that the postillion was having serious family problems. This was
causing him to be less conscientious on the job. The GPO, in response
to our [Russkiya Vyedomosti's] inquiry, considers this incident to be
one of a kind. Punctual delivery of private correspondence in Moscow
is absolutely guaranteed, in the opinion of the GPO's administration,
by the fact that the cadre of postillions (1,375 men) is chosen
exclusively from the ranks of reserve non-comnissioned officers, and
then only those men are picked who have laudatory recommendations from
their regimental superiors. As a further means of control, in each
postal branch office there is a "senior man" whose task it is to check
on mail delivery every day; in the evenings they have the right to go
to the postillions' apartments and see if there is any undelivered mail.
Not only that, but from time to time the GPO sends out a questionnaire
to those who receive ordinary correspondence, to ascertain whether
certain letters are received. The GPO considers all this to be a
completely sufficient guarantee. Postillion Titov has been released
from postal service and will be turned over to the court."
(From "Russkiya Vyedomosti, 31 March 1913.)

Finally, what happens in 1913 when you've run the gauntlet of wolves,
dogs, train wrecks, terrorists and burrowing Chinese, only to reach the
addressee's door, present him with a letter franked with Romanov jubilee stamps,
and you're attacked by an apoplectic archimandrite?

33

"JUBILEE STAMPS. A certain archimandrite Z is in despair over the new
jubilee stamps. 'Even if it's for a whole year, don't write a single
letter to anyone!' And here's his latest letter to A. I Dubrovin:

'Aleksandr Ivanovich! Call out the guard at 'Russkiya znameni'! [A
Russian newspaper DMS]. Is there really NOTHING that can be done?
If only they'd withdraw the 7-kopeck stamp from use... Aleksandr
Ivanovich! For Christ's sake, either shout, or think of something.
This can't be suffered for an entire year! Quickly! Quickly! There
from Odessa they're already sending letters with the new stamps, and
the portraits of the Tsars are being disfigured by the cancels. Oo-oy!
It hurts! It's not a Black Hundreder they're hitting in the face!!!
Woe is us; we are simple at heart and strong of mind, but the enemy is
crafty and evil!" (From Russkiya Vyedcmosti, 14 January 1913.)

Do you still want to be a postman?

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SECTION

The year 1985 found the Northern California section of the Rossica Society
meeting three times at well-known philatelic shows in the San Francisco Bay
Area. At Filatelic Fiesta in San Jose twelve attended to hear Mike Renfro
discuss same of his new Used Abroad covers. Along with this was a short slide
show about a fake cover with a Russia #1 and bilingual JANOW marking which is
discussed in an article in this journal.

At WESTPEX in San Francisco, the premier exhibition on the West Coast,
26 people attended our meeting. Once again Mike Renfro dug into his vast closet
of material and gave a slide presentation of Riga Cancellations Through the
Years, covering a span of markings from Imperial Russia days up through modern
Soviet times. His covers and markings generated lively discussion along with a
swap session after.

Our last meeting was held at the East Bay Collectors Club Stamp Show in
Oakland. We repeated an earlier program of the Printing Freaks and Errors of
the 1909-1923 Arms Issues. The color slides were made from stamps in an
accumulation of these shifts, offsets, misperfed, etc. owned by Alex Sadovnikov.

Our meetings are quite informal, open to all interested in Russian or
Russian-related philately. We try to keep our meetings informative and
entertaining with lively discussion, questions and answers as well as show and
tell items each person is encouraged to bring to the meeting.

Society representative for the Northern California Chapter is Dr. George V.
Shalimoff, 20 Westgate Drive, San Francisco, California 94127. Members
interested in attending other Society functions in the Bay Area should contact
George at 415-584-9780.

34

STHE 8 KOPEK OVERPRINTS ON POSTAGE DUE AND POSTAGE STAMPS
[Based on an article of the same title by
E M. ARKHANGELSKII, Rossica Journal No. 1, 1930]

by George V. Shalimoff

[Ed. note: Rossica Journal No. 1 was published in April 1930 by Eugene M.
Arkhangelskii in Yugoslavia. At first it was not a specialized journal of
Russian philately but rather a journal with articles about stamps of many
nations written in Russian. However, the first issue included an article by Mr.
Arkhangelskii on the then recent Soviet 8 kopek overprints on postage due stamps
and other postage stamps. Though it is hard to believe, there has been no other
mention of these overprinted stamps in the Rossica Journal since that time. An
updated version seems in order.

Mr. Arkhangelskii compiled the data for his article less than three years
after the overprints were issued. There were a few emissions and inaccuracies
which we have tried to correct using current literature even though many
discrepancies still exist. The references are citied within the text and listed
at the end of this article.]

The 8 Kopek Overprints on Postage Due Stamps

In 1926 the postal rate for a domestic intercity sealed letter (an ordinary
letter) in the USSR was increased from 7 kopeks to 8 kopeks. At first it
appeared the regular supply of 8 kopek stamps as well as combinations of the
then current definitive issues would handle the demand. However, in 1927
shortages occurred and the Soviet postal administration overprinted the
remaining stocks of postage due stamps which were recently withdrawn from
circulation along with some 7 kopek postage stamps that were in circulation at
that time.

The overprinted postage due stamps are particularly interesting because of
the large number of varieties made on the various unwatermarked lithographed and
typographed stamps and on the watermarked typographed stamps.

The overprinted stamps were placed into circulation in June 1927 as
announced in an NKPiT (Peoples Konmissariat of the Post and Telegraph) circular
dated June 11, 1927 (Ref. 1). in as much as the postal rate change was
February 1, 1926 (Ref. 2), it is interesting that more than a year later
overprints were introduced rather than a totally new printing of 8 kopek stamps
to meet the demand for stamps of that value. Although June 11, 1927 is the
accepted date of issue, coinciding with the announcement, an overprinted stamp
canceled June 10, 1927 has been reported in the USSR (Ref. 3).

The postage due stamps were overprinted in shiny black ink, typographed in
three horizontal lines with the words "POCHTOVAYA" (postage) and "MARKA" (stamp)
plus the new value "KOP. 8 KOP." A sample is shown in Figure 1.

The overprints were made with two cliches which resulted in two types of
overprints.

35

SIIOTOBAR nO'T TOBA
EAPIA IAPRA

l ... Kon.S Kon. iion.S Ko n..

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

Type I. The last letters "A" in the words of the upper and middle lines are
positioned vertically one under the other (Figure 2). The printing ink is often
thick. The letters are thickened and oftentimes filled with ink, especially the
first cyrillic letter "P" in the top line. It occurs filled, joined, or like a
Roman numeral "II" or even a closed rectangle.

Type II. The above mentioned letters "A" are slanted with respect to one
another, with the lower "A" to the left of the upper letter "A" (Figure 3). The
printing is clean and sharp, especially the first letter of the top line.

Small deviations are found in the Type I stamps where the position of the
lower "A" may be shifted to the right or left by a small amount. When it is
shifted to the left, the overprint can resemble a Type II overprint. In this
case it is necessary to check the length of the first and third line.

Overprinted Line Type I Type II

POCHTOVAYA 15.5 mm 15.75 mn

MARKA 11.0 mm 11.0 rn

KOP. 8 KOP. 17.75 mm 17.25 mm

The difference in the length of the top line of the overprint was caused by
a larger separation between the letters "T" and "0" in the Type II. The
difference in the length of the lower line is due to a larger separation between
the number "8" and the word "KOP." on the right side in the Type I.

In addition to the overprinted types, it is necessary to separate the
printing types of the stamps as follows:

A. Lithographed printed postage due stamps on unwatermarked paper:

a) perforated 12;
b) perforated 14 x 14.

B. Typograph printed postage due stamps on unwatermarked paper, perforated 12.

C. Typograph printed postage due stamps on watermarked paper, perforated 12. 0

36

It is easy to distinguish the lithopgraphed printed stamps from the
typograph printed as follows:

1. lithographed the lightning bolts in each corner are thin and sharp; those
in the upper left corner are very thin, hardly visible; the letters "C.C.C.P."
across the top are thin (Figure 4).

2. typographed on uncanceled stamps there is an indentation of the design
visible on the gum side; the lightning bolt arrowheads are thick and crude,
frequently joined together and difficult to separate the parts; the letters
"C.C.C.P." are thicker (Figure 5).

Figure 4 Figure 5

The following table indicated the stamps with normal overprints. It is
complied from data given in the 1983 Gibbons Catalog, Part 10, Russia,
* 2nd edition, the Minkus Russia Catalog 1982, the Cercle Philatelique France-URSS
1969, the 1983 Catalog of Soviet Postage Stamps 1917-1980 as well as articles by
Soviet authors (Ref. 1 and 4). These were the only sources that tried to
distinguish the various types of overprints on the various papers and
perforations. The white spaces indicate stamps known to exist.

Overprint Lithographed I Typographed
Unwatermarked Unwtmk. Watermarked
MARKA perf. 12 p. 14x14 perf. 12 perf. 12
KOP. 8 KOP-
KOP. 8 KOP. Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type
on I II I II I II I II
1 k. red
"2 k. violet
3 k. It. blue "
7 k. yellow
8 k. green _
10 k. dk. blue
14 k. brown

Table 1

Normal Overprints

37

Some numbers of stamps issued are given in the 1983 Catalog of Postage
Stamps of the USSR 1918-1980.

Type I Overprints

Lithographed, perf 12 Typographed, unwatermarked

8 k. on 1 k. 50,000 8 k. on 1 k. 1,000,000
8 k. on 2 k. 50,000 8 k. on 2 k. 1,000,000
8 k. on 7 k. 100,000 8 k. on 7 k. 500,000
8 k. on 8 k. 100,000 8 k. on 8 k. 1,000,000
8 k. on 10 k. 50,000 8 k. on 14 k. 1,000,000
8 k. on 14 k. 50,000
Typographed, watermarked

All 7 values 1,000,000 each

Type II Overprints

Lithographed, perf 12 Typographed, unwatermarked

8 k. on 3 k. 3,000,000 8 kop. on 3 k. 1,000,000

Although these data appear incomplete, the Soviet catalog and writers were
able to say that the overprinted lithographed stamps were the least common. The
reason for this is that the lithographed postage due stamps were the first type
to be issued in 1925 and by the time of their withdrawal from circulation in
1927, they were practically all used up. Only a small number were available for
overprinting.

Similarly, there was a period of time when the postage due stamps were used
as ordinary postage stamps. With a letter rate of 7 kopeks, the postage due
stamps of that value were frequently used and, correspondingly, a smaller number
of them remained in stock when in March 1927 they were withdrawn and later
overprinted. Consequently, overprinted 7 kopek postage due stamps, both the
typographed and lithographed, are particularly scarce. Oddly enough, all
possible types of the normal overprint in 7 kopek value postage due stamps
exist, as indicated in Table 1.

The overprinted 10 kop. typographed stamp on unwatermarked paper is very
interesting. Although it is not listed in any catalog, several canceled copies
are known (Ref. 1). What makes it unusual is the fact that no 10 kopek
typographed postage due stamp on unwatermarked paper was issued. How is it
possible to find it overprinted? The explanation offered was that at the time
the 10 kop. postage due stamps were printed on watermarked paper, there may have
been a sheet of unwatermarked paper accidentally included or a sheet with a
partial or shifted watermark. The stamps were printed on the unwatermarked
portion of the sheet. Somehow this sheet of stamps survived the rigors of usage
as postage due stamps and postage stamps and was ultimately overprinted, sold
and used.

As could be expected, numerous inverted overprints were produced during the
overprinting process. Two examples are shown in Figures 6 and 7.

38

Figure 6 Figure 7

The listings of these inverted overprints are hopelessly confused in the
literature because they are not always separated according to type of original
printing (lithographed or typographed) nor were they always separated according
to type of overprint (Type I or II). Table 2 is an attempt to indicate the
known inverted varieties. There are probably emissions and misclassifications.
Comments of specialists are invited. Again, a white space indicates existence
of the variety.

Qverprint Lithographed Typographed
POCHTOVAYA Unwatermarked Unwtmk. Watermarked
POCHTOVAYA
MARKA perf. 12 p. 14x14 perf. 12 perf. 12
KOPV 8 KOP --- T -
"KOP. 8 KOP. Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type
on I II I II I II I II
1 k. red
2 k. violet
3 k. It. blue @ @ @
7 k. yellow @ *@
8 k. green @
10 k. dk. blue @ @
14 k. brown @ @ @

Table 2

Inverted Overprints

According to Soviet literature, many of the inverts were carefully removed
at the time of printing. Nevertheless, same got into postal circulation and
these are found basically in used condition. These are marked with an "@" in
the table. The 8 kop. on 1 kop. lithographed perf. 12 Type II is, thus far,
"* "unique." One used copy was found in 1928 in a Leningrad collection (Ref. 1).
It is interesting in that this stamp is not known with a normal (not inverted)
overprint.

39

A second group of inverted overprints is usually found uncanceled,
indicated with a "*" in the table. These are stamps from the sheets of inverts
removed at the time of printing which later were sent to philatelic outlets for
sale to collectors. These stamps often have a Soviet authentication mark on the
back (Fig. 8) (Ref. 5). Least frequently found among these invert overprinted
stamps are the typographed Type II, both unwatermarked and watermarked. The
tyopgraphed 8 kop. on 1 kop. Type II on unwatermarked paper is peculiar in the
sense that it is only known with inverted overprint, as we can see when Tables 1
and 2 are compared.

A double overprinted variety is known, an 8 kop. on 14 kop. There is some
shifting of the second overprint in the horizontal direction. According to a
Soviet writer, the double overprint variety is on the typographed 14 kop.,
unwatermarked paper, Type II (Ref. 1). However, according to another article,
the variety is on a typographed stamp on watermarked paper with no type given
(Ref. 6). Perhaps same readers can clarify this discrepancy.

The original article by Mr. Arkhangelskii indicated some printing varieties
of the overprints which so far have not been discussed in detail in other
articles. Mr. Arkhangelskii wrote that several examples can be found where
there is a letter "C" in place of an "O" in the words "KOP. 8 KOP." It is
random and occurs on either the left or right as follows:

1. 1 kop., lithographed, perf. 12, left half reads "KCP."

2. 1 kop., watermarked, left half reads "KCP."

3. 3 kop.,

4. 8 kop.,

5. 14 kop.,

6. 1 kop., right half reads "KCP."

7. 14 kop.,

He adds that there were many printing flaws in this issue, many letters and
numbers with spaces, unprinted sections and ends. Perhaps his "KCP." varieties
really fall into this category in view of the lack of substantiation by recent
writers. Although they, too, indicate overprints with incomplete printing and
broken letters, no specific example of a "KCP." was given.

The 1983 Gibbons Catalog Part 10, Russia reports that forgeries of the
inverted overprints exist. However, no details were given in that catalog nor
were any found in other current literature.

The watermark on the typographed stamps is called "Greek Border and
Rosettes", "Key and Flowers" or "Kovyor" (meaning carpet) depending on which
catalog one uses. It is a distinctive pattern on right angled lines and an
eight petal flower with a center. The watermark can appear in two ways on a
stamp, a so-called normal position (Fig. 9) and one rotated 90 degrees
(Fig. 10). There can also be a left and right hand position of each direction.

40

CCCPL
CBE11MACC i IT r

Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10

On Soviet issues printed on this watermarked paper, stamps of the same
value can be found with the watermark in one or the other direction only or in
both directions. None of the overprinted postage due stamps has been reported
to occur on paper watermarked in both directions simultaneously. However,
several values are said to occur with the watermark sideways with respect to the
other values (Ref. 7).

Sideways Watermark

8 kop. on 1 kop. typographed Type I and II

8 kop. on 3 kop. typographed Type II

8 kop. on 7 kop. Type I
8 kop. on 8 kop. Type I

8 kop. on 10 kop. Type II

8 kop. on 14 kop. Type II

The watermark direction is oftentimes difficult to determine on the small
size postage due stamps. This is probably why no one has reported attempts to
check the right or left hand position of the watermark.

There are no reported partial perfs fantailss) or imperforate of the
overprinted stamp. Although no offsets have been reported in the given
literature, a copy of such an offset is shown here in Figure 11. It is a true
offset with the overprint on the gum side shifted slightly with respect to the
overprint on the face side. It definitely is not simple penetration of the
original overprint to the gum side.

UURASTFOII

.Bo 8.110)1

Figure 11

41

In July 1928 the postal rates for an ordinary letter in the USSR increased
to 10 kopeks. This ended the wide use of the 8 kop. overprinted postage due
stamps. Although they were not officially recalled, they were found less and
less on mail and apparently used up. A later usage dated February 13, 1929 was
reported (Ref. 8).

The "8 KOP." Overprint on the 7 Kop. Definitive Stamps

There are two types of overprints made on several different 7 kop. stamps
of the 1925-1926 definitive series with the design of a Red Army soldier. This
resulted in 6 different stamps.

The Type I overprint was issued in 1927. It has a wide vertical spacing of
2 mm between the numerals "8" and the word "KOP." below (Figs. 12 and 13). The
length of the lower line is 10.5 mm and the overall height is 9 mm. This
overprint is found on the brown 7 kop. typographed soldier stamps as follows:

1. unwatermarked paper, perforated 14 x 14;

2. unwatermarked paper, perforated 12;

3. watermarked paper, perforated 12.

The Type II overprint was issued in early 1928. It has a narrow vertical
spacing of 0.75 rm between the numeral "8" and the word "KOP." (Figs. 14 and
15). The length of the lower line is 10.75 mm and the overall height is 8 mrn.
This overprint is found on the following typographed 7 kop. soldier definitive:

4. unwatermarked paper, perforated 14 x 14;

5. unwatermarked paper, perforated 12;

6. watermarked paper, perforated 12.

8 ,o 8.
HOn. KOn.

Figure 13 Figure 15

Figure 12 Figure 14

The numerals "8" are found with various thicknesses. Offset overprints on
the gum side have been reported for the Type I on unwatermarked paper although
it is not clear whether the offset was found on both perforation types (Ref. 9).
This same article reported a specimen of the Type I consisting of a strip of
five stamps with the word "OBRAZETS" (specimen) perforated across the strip.

42

The two types on watermarked paper were the most cannon in postal
circulation. The least frequently found variety is the Type II overprint on
unwatermarked paper perforated 14 x 14.

Inverted overprints are found on the following (Ref. 4):

Type I a) unwatermarked paper, perforated 12;

b) watermarked paper, perforated 12 (Fig. 16);

Type II c) watermarked paper, perforated 12.

No watermark position varieties, imperfs or fantails have been reported.

Mr. Arkhangelskii's article mentioned sane minor overprint varieties
consisting of incompletely printed letters and letters with gaps, for example,
the broken letters "0" in the words "KOP." (Figs. 17 and 18) and the broken
numeral "8" in Figure 19. These broken letters and gaps have been attributed to
small circular pieces of paper from the perforation holes that were on the
surface of the sheets of stamps when the overprinting was done. Part of a
letter would be printed on the small circle instead of the stamp. Consequently,
any "broken" letter can be entirely random and not a constant cliche flaw. A
"3 KOP." on the 7 kop. soldier definitive was reported in 1928 (Ref. 10) but
this, too was probably a case of the overprint interrupted by pieces of
perforation circles and not a numeral "3" on the printing plate.

Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19

Fake Type II overprints, both normal and inverted, were reported in the
USSR (Ref. 11 and 12). They appeared around 1969. They are skillfully made and
could be accepted as genuine if not compared to a genuine stamp.

Details of the fake Type II oveprints are:

1. The number and letters are fatter, especially the letters "0" and
cyrillic "P" in the word "KOP."

2. The length of the word "KOP." including the period is 10.5 mm on the
fake. On the genuine stamp, it is 10.75 mm.

3. The dimensions of the inside opening of the letter "O" is 1.5 x 2.0 mm
on the fake. On the genuine it is 1.75 x 2.5 m.

43

4. The distance between the legs of the cyrillic letter "P" is 1.25-1.3 mm
on the fake. It is 1.5 mm on the genuine overprint.

In addition, the period after the letter "P" on the fake is a bit closer to
the letter than on the genuine and the connection of the upper and lower right
side parts of the letter "K" is a little lower on the fake.

The photographs in the references were too poor to reproduce here. But
from these photographs and the given details it appears the forger used a Type I
overprint as a model and simply reduced the distance between the lines to make
the fake Type II overprint. In reality, the Type I and Type II overprints
differ not only in the spacing between the lines, but in the size and shapes of
the letters as well. This can be seen in Figures 13 and 15.

The "8 KOP." Overprints on 7 Kop. Camrneorative Stamps

Seven ccnuemorative stamps with 7 kop. values were overprinted "8 KOP." in
two lines. The overprint was one type only, with a spacing of 0.75 mn between
the lines.

An "8 KOP." overprint in red ink was made on the 7 kop. stamp on the Popov
issue (Fig. 20, left side).

There is only one major printing variety for this issue, an inverted
numeral "8" but with the word "KOP." printed normally. On the inverted "8" the
upper loop of the numeral is larger than the lower loop (Fig. 20, right side).
This variety was found at position 22 on the sheet, the second stamp in the
third row (Ref. 13).

There are no completely inverted overprints of this issue. However, fake
inverted overprints made in light red ink have been reported (Ref. 11).

The 1969 Cercle Philatelique France-URSS Catalog lists a shifted overprint
on this issue.

Finally in December 1927 the following "8 KOP." overprints were made:

1. the 7 kop. Decembrist issue, perforated 13 (Fig. 21);

2. the 7 kop. Decembrist issue, imperforate;

3. the 20th Anniversary of the 1905 Revolution issue,
comb perforated 12 x 12, 7 kop. (Fig. 22);

4. the 20th Anniversary of the 1905 Revolution issue,
line perforated 12, 7 kop.;

5. the 20th Anniversary of the 1905 Revolution issue,
7 kop. imperforate;

6. the 7 kop. International Esperanto Congress,
perforated 12 x 12 (Fig. 23).

44

I "

Figure 20

o IWT~A -DOSTO
SCCP U%%S

Figure 21
ESPRWANTO- DNGR50 i

Figure 22 Figure 23

The overprinted 1905 Revolutionary Anniversary issue perforated 12 is
rare. Consequently fakes are known made from the overprinted imperforate
stamps. The perforations on the fake measure 12g instead of 12. Comparison
should be made with the unoverprinted perforated stamp (Ref. 12). No other
varieties of these overprinted commemorative stamps were reported.

Of the overprinted cannrrorative stamps, only the Popov stamp was in wide
circulation. The others were essentially transferred to the Soviet Philatelic
Association for sale to stamp collectors and dealers. They are usually found
unused or with philatelic cancellations.

[Acknowledgment: Photographs for Figures 7, 11, 16, 18, and 19 were made from
stamps in the collection of A. Sadovnikov.]

45

REFERENCES

1. "Series with Overprints," V. Karlinskii, Filateliya SSSR, No. 1, 1968,
p. 40.

2. "Soviet Postal Rates," V. Karlinskii, Rossica Journal, No. 75, 1968, p. 56.

3. "Notes to the Editor," Filateliya SSSR, No. 10, 1968, p. 42.

4. "To Inform Readers," V. Aloits and V. Karlinskii, Filateliya SSSR, No. 9,
1970, p. IV.

5. "Soviet Authentication Marks," V. Aloits, Filateliya SSSR, No. 2, 1980,
p. 51.

6. "The Overprinted Postage Due Stamps of the Soviet Union," N. Verbitsky,
Russian Philatelist, No. 11, May 1969, p. 11.

7. "Key and Flower Watermarks," H. Irmann-Jacobsen, British Journal of Russian
Philately, No. 31, 1962, p. 9.

8. "Postage Due Stamps," P. Mazur, Filateliya SSSR, No. 12, 1974, p. 37.

9. "The First USSR Standard Stamps," S. Blekhman, Sovetskii Kollektsioner,
No. 15, 1977, p. 9.

10. "Philately in Vyatka," Vyamich, Sovetskii Kollektsioner, No. 1, 1928,
p. 18.

11. "New Fakes," K. Berngard and Ya. Vovin, Filateliya SSSR, No. 5, 1970,
p. 13.

12. "Reference Book on Expertization of Soviet Stamps," Ya. M. Vovin, "Svyaz",
Moscow, 1972, pages 61-63.

13. "8 KOP." Overprint of the Popov Stamp," N. Serikov, Sovetskii Filatelist,
No. 3, 1928, p. 19.

NEW MEMBERS (continued)

1219 Lance Edward Sieh, 506 West 5th Street, Apt. A, Tempe, Arizona 85281

1220 Stanley Gibbons, Unit 5 Parside, Christchurch Road, Ringwood (Hants),
Great Britain

1221 Dennis Sluski, 1002 Summit Drive, Lockport, Illinois 60441

1222 Gary C. Moore, 2606 Roosevelt, Midland, Texas 79701

1223 Russell E. Ott, P.O. Box 157491, Irving, Texas 75015

1224 Dr. Martin Garfinkel, 1111 Cranden Boulevard, Apt. B502, Key Biscayne,
Florida 33149

1225 Oleg Yudkin, 6545 No. Range Line Road, Glendale, Wisconsin 53209

46 (continued page 84)

VREMENNOE UPDATE

by David Skipton

Information on Russia's temporary post offices continues to pour in,
although nothing like the flood in Rossica #104-105 ("Vremennoe Revisited" -
"VR"). Some of it still surfaces in the literature, such as the article on the
Qnsk Exhibition of 1911, but the rest is due to philatelic finds and a few short
blurbs found in original sources. So, without further ado, the update.

EXHIBITIONS. The list of exhibits (vystavki) now stands at eight, with the
addition of QOsk. A short article entitled "Qnsk-Vystavka-1911" by Zh. Aronova
(in Filatelia SSSR, 1, 1973, pp. 15-16) told about this find and showed photos
of the front and back of the sole card known to Soviet philatelists. Neither
the cancellation nor the photo of the Gardening Pavillion reproduce very well,
so a hand-drawn representation is provided in Fig. 1. It closely resembles

13711 '

Fig. 1

those of Ekaterinoslav, Odessa, and Kostroma. The card itself (in the
collection of Finnish philatelist Heinrich A. Johanson) was sent from the Omsk
Exhibition to Warsaw on 19 July 1911 (OS).

Originally scheduled to begin in 1910, the exhibition didn't get off the
ground until 15 June 1911. Its full title was "The First Western-Siberian
Agricultural, Trade and Industry Exhibition," and it played host to about
180,000 visitors in the two months of its existence. The grounds included 60
pavillions and a temporary post-and-telegraph office located at the main gate.
A Mr. P. Kukne was in charge of the office, which opened on the same day as the
Exhibition.

Given the number of people who attended, the many Western firms who had
displays there, and the fact that an entire series of picture postcards was
prepared for the event, more examples should have survived.

NIZHNII NOVGOROD FAIR. Surpisingly, no new Niznii Novgorod finds have come
to light, so this large grouping remains the same.

47

r~ .- --- -- -- .-

^ ^\ ^

p ig. 2

MIITARY CAMPS AN RANGES. No new additions, but two reinforcements.
Fig. 2 shows what is thus far the earliest Vladixrskii lager' cancel, 21-5-1912
L P .. A,

on a postcard to Cherepovets, Novgorod province, and Fig. 3 is the fourth
Skobelevskii lager' to be recorded. It falls within the 9-7-11 to 1-6-12 range
(25 or 26-V-12).

I/Ir -- -r7 ^ -k --
e *. d- r, [ *.W- ------.--

S, ^ --- ,-/-- -

Fig. 3

48
e h~1~ U3248

RESORTS, DACHA AREAS, SPAS. The postcard in Fig. 4 is our first real look
at a postmark from Kenmern, a resort area southwest of the Rigashcher Strand.
It reads "1 Kermern Lifl. G. 1 Pocht Otd. 26 Jun. 1894."

OTJ{PIbITOE II IC C. bMO I
"" / OTB"TA. 3 T

Fig. 4

4- \ a .C,

-7X
P'.," -STALE 7

I 5 -
Fig. 4
l;- 4 .- -

.-.-. .__ __ ._ ~;! ;.__________

.- ; 4 F 6 *1

Bilderlingshof, respectively.
-:-

50
.. . . .

Fig 5

Maiorenhof has acquired two more varieties, the first a cross-date serial
"2" (Fig. 5) that shows it as a postal branch office (pocht. otd.) and the
second as a cross-date serial "3" that is very similar to Fig. 39 of "WR" but
differs in the province abbreviation "Lifi." instead of "Liflyan." (Fig. 6).
Figs. 7 and 8 show scenes from the Rigashcher Strand and the Aa near
Bilderlingshof, respectively.

Once we get away from the Baltic area, the new finds bounce all over the
entire, so the best thing to do is address them in alphabetical order.

1. Khadzhibeiskii liman (lagoon), north of Odessa. J. G. Motes has added the
gem in Fig. 9 to his arrayr of tempos, this one a picture postcard from the
resort showing the park hotel .

50

"Pnasc. BSMopie. Rigischer Strand

Fig. 7

Buju(epjnnrcro l Mocm' qepex3E p. Aa
Aa-Briicke bei Bilderlingshof

Fig. 8

51

O4eva. -aa eni\i .yuja,, .-II.,ouiu a .,. -. ,..
S nepe'b 3Jaipa L I M [J-IJhllillrbl 11b n il 1 I .t i ,.u
Odessa. Liman Khadjibey-gazon en face

Fig. 9

2. Kuyal'nitskii liman, a short distance away, now has a fraternal twin to the
Khadzhibei cancellation shown in Fig. 49 of "VR" a "1" at the bottom denoting
a local branch office. Although the serial letter at the right looks like an
"i" in the reproduction, it must be an "a" that did not take fully on the
strike. (Fig. 10)

9-c OTPa E IHC*

|2.-Q~UO~...- ........
.... ........
I It

Odea. Monument de 1'Empereur Alexa

Fig. 10

52

3. A second cancel has now been recorded from Lyesnoe, the park area north of
St. Petersburg. It does not differ from the one shown in "Vremennoe" Fig. 32,
but we now have a small range of usage, 16-5-1888 to 26-6-1888. (Fig. 11)

D-

Fig. 11
2 S.P.B. Pochtamta 2 Lyesnoe Vr. P. Otd. nie 16 Maya 1888
(J. G. Moyes Collection)

Psis EHucel. IIpUcraHb ,BaTeW*', onb Loropol BAToi xopora ia
zypopr ,Ovsepo llspo'. M 42.

Fig. 12

4. No cancel from the Siberian resort of Shiro has graced these pages yet, but
Mr. Moyes puts us on the trail with a picture postcard in Fig. 12. The caption
reads "Ensei river. 'Bateni' wharf, whence the road to 'Lake Shiro' resort
leads. No. 42." Can anyone get us a bit further up that road?

53

5. Moving back to St. Petersburg, we have a new entry in the "Shuvalovo
Sweepstakes," and once again it is Mr. Moyes with the winning ticket. Not only
is Fig. 13 the earliest recorded Shuvalovo, it seems to be a new type, similar
to Pargolovo in Fig. 30 and Lyesnoe in Fig. 32 of "Vremennoe." The recorded
range for this TPO now stands at 26-5-1900 to 17-6-1903.

"BCEMIPHIJdH II OTOBIIHi
UNION POSTAL UNIVERSE RUSSIE.

OTKPbITOE HCbMO. CARTE ,. '

"P h oJ t t y le
| ..

"Fig. 13
"2 S.P.B. Pochtama 2 Shuvalov. Vr. P. Otd.nie 26 Maya 1900."

TEMIPORARY CITY POST OFFICES. No new cancels to report, but the speculation
in "VR" that the Sparrow Hills (Vorob'evy gory) TPO outside Moscow might not
have opened until 1916 can now be put to rest. Two announcements that appeared
in "Russkiya Vyedcaosti" on 28 April and 1 May 1913 give us information on
Sparrow Hills, Khodynskoe pole and Pokrovskoe-Glyebovo, all temporary offices
open during the summer months, near Moscow.

"April 28 The Moscow GPO announces that this year, as in previous years,
postal branch offices will open for the summer in the villages of
Pokrovskoe-Glyebovo and Vorob'evy gory from 1 May through 1 September and on
Khodynskoe Field at the military camp area from 28 May through 27 August."

"1 May The Moscow Postal Director announces that... the temporary postal
branch office on Khodynskoe Field will be open 1 May rather than the previously
announced 28 May."

My special thanks once again to J. G. Moyes for his indispensable help in
writing this article!

54

THE BEGINNING OF MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND GERMANY IN 1918

by August Leppa

It is well known in philatelic literature that mail between Russia and
Germany was allowed in 1918 after the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The exact
first day of this service is still unknown, and I'll try to prove one possible
hypothesis which is not exactly the same as the previously accepted truth. The
proof is based on four items, and so my statement remains still a hypothesis, I
think.

The cease fire for the Eastern Front started in 1917 on the 15th of
December according to the German calendar. Peace negotiations started a few
days later, and the peace treaty was signed on the 3rd of March 1918, (i.e., in
February according to the Russian calendar). The possibility of mail exchange
was opened in principle in the ceasefire negotiations or shortly afterwards, but
formal regulations concerning this mail were published by the Germans on the
31st of January. According to Rottger the possibility of sending mail to Russia
was published in newspapers on the 28th of January. Knowing the German
bureaucracy it would be easy to conclude that all that was not allowed was
forbidden, and so mail from Germany to Russia would be possible in February
1918.

'r Poo t arte
Ruseland.
j. -----a- -- -

Kommort inr e
Nikelai Aloekandrowitsok
K n -a r 1 ----- ----------------

S...Naphta' -Produkti-ins-Gn.

.. .. .......---..........

"- tIoy^ ^ L

Fig. 1

The card which might be a key to the problem (Fig. 1) is dated and
cancelled in Riga on the 7th of January and later on in Petrograd 25.1.18 and
29.1.18, which in the German calendar means almost the middle of February.
According to the regulations mentioned above, mail was censored in Konigsberg or

55

THE BEGINNING OF MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND GERMANY IN 1918

by August Leppa

It is well known in philatelic literature that mail between Russia and
Germany was allowed in 1918 after the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The exact
first day of this service is still unknown, and I'll try to prove one possible
hypothesis which is not exactly the same as the previously accepted truth. The
proof is based on four items, and so my statement remains still a hypothesis, I
think.

The cease fire for the Eastern Front started in 1917 on the 15th of
December according to the German calendar. Peace negotiations started a few
days later, and the peace treaty was signed on the 3rd of March 1918, (i.e., in
February according to the Russian calendar). The possibility of mail exchange
was opened in principle in the ceasefire negotiations or shortly afterwards, but
formal regulations concerning this mail were published by the Germans on the
31st of January. According to Rottger the possibility of sending mail to Russia
was published in newspapers on the 28th of January. Knowing the German
bureaucracy it would be easy to conclude that all that was not allowed was
forbidden, and so mail from Germany to Russia would be possible in February
1918.

Sp Po fttarte
Ruseland.

Hrr .

Koamert ienr
Nikelai Al*ksandrrew' sok
Kama el, ----

i... Naphta' -Prduktrin -Gl r .
ObM ider N F 1
PE IT5\ G A .-
..... ............................ .. ... .......

.x ......... .

Fig. 1

The card which might be a key to the problem (Fig. 1) is dated and
cancelled in Riga on the 7th of January and later on in Petrograd 25.1.18 and
29.1.18, which in the German calendar means almost the middle of February.
According to the regulations mentioned above, mail was censored in Konigsberg or

55

CATALOG CONFUSION

by George V. Shalimoff

Stamp catalogs are the primary sources of information for most collectors.
Inevitably errors and contradictions occur which in most cases can be straightened
out. However, one example which is hopelessly confused in the catalogs is the
1956 Soviet 40 kopek stamp ccmnemorating the 148 year old Azerbaijan farmer, M.
Eivazov (or Aivazov).

When the commemorative was first released, August 27, 1956, Eivazov's first
name was apparently misspelled and sometime later a new stamp was issued with a
new spelling as well as other small changes. The problem is that it isn't clear
from any of the catalogs which is the first issue, what is the correct first name,
or what are the correct perforation data for the stamps.

Figure 1 shows what is called the "three lines" variety. We see that the
panel on the left with the "148" has three lines of text. There is no period
after the abbreviated word "KOP" and at the bottom the first name reads
"Mukhamed. "

Figure 2 shows the "two lines" variety. The panel at the left has only two
lines of text. The ordinary number adjective ending is missing. There is a
period after the word "KOP." and the first name below reads "Makhmud."

ROMTA
urn

Figure 1 Figure 2
The "three lines" variety, The "two lines" variety,
first name reads "Mukhamed" first name reads "Makhmud"

Scott Catalog first listed one stamp in 1958 as #1860. The illustration
showed the "three lines Mukhamed" variety but the caption reads "Machmud," the
name on the "two lines" variety. This same illustration and caption have been
used to the present catalog, although one letter was changed to read "Makhmud,"
beginning in 1974. So right from the first mention in the Scott catalog, the
illustration and caption didn't agree.

57

A sample of Scott Catalog listings are shown below:

#1860 #1860a

1958 .25 .06

"three lines" "two lines"

1960 .25 .08 2.50

1965 1.00 .08 8.00 2.00

1968 8.00 .75 9.00 2.50

1969 10.00 1.00 9.00 2.50

1971 12.50 3.00 9.00 2.50

1972 9.00 2.50 12.50 3.00

1979 12.50 6.00 7.50 2.50

"two lines" "three lines"

1980 7.50 2.50 17.50 17.50

1983 7.50 2.50 30.00 30.00

The number #1860 for the "three lines" variety and #1860a for the "two lines"
variety remained the same until 1980 when Scott suddenly reversed the two, which
has continued to the present issue of the catalog.

Up through 1968 Scott valued the "two lines" variety greater than the "three
lines" variety but in 1969 this trend was reversed and the "three lines" was
valued more. With the exception in 1972, this trend has continued to the present.
Whereas one might understand valuation changes based on market conditions, it is
hard to see why the stamp numbers were reversed.

Finally, at no time does Scott indicate the perforations of either variety.

The Minkus Russia Catalogs list the following:

1966 #1982 "three lines" perf. 123x12 $4.50 .50
#1982a "two lines" 7.50 4.00

1970 #1982 "three lines" perf. 12x12 4.50 .50
#1982a "two lines" 12.00 8.00

1982 #1982 "three lines" perf. 12 12.00 10.00
#1982a "two lines" perf. 12x12 17.00 12.00

The Minkus Russia Catalogs are consistent in numbering the two varieties with
only a change in perforations found in the latest catalog. Minkus values the "two
lines" variety higher in all cases.

58

The German Michel Katalog for two years shows the following:

1969 #1871 I "two lines" DM 50.00 18.00
line perf. 12

#1871 II "three lines" 8.00 3.50
line perf. 12 and
comb perf. 12x12

1980 #1871 I "two lines" 35.00 20.00
line perf. 12

#1871 II "three lines" 25.00 8.00
line perf. 12 and
camb perf. 12x12

Michel says the correct name is "Makhmud" on the "two lines" variety.
Although the order of listing is opposite to the Scott and Minkus catalogs, Michel
values the "two lines" variety more as does Minkus. Th perforations are opposite
to the Minkus data and Michel also indicated two perforation varieties for the
"three lines" variety.

The Soviet catalogs are equally confusing as we see below:

1958 Catalog of Soviet Union Postage Stamps

#1969 M. Eivazov line perf. 12 R .44 .12
#1969A M. Eivazov comb perf. 12x12 .44 .12

Note that no mention was made which was the "three lines" or "two lines" variety,
nor was the first name spelled.

1969 Reference Book of Soviet Stamps 1918-1968

#1611 I "three lines"
comb perf. 12x12h

#1611 II "two lines"
line perf. 12

1972 Catalog of Postage Stamps of the USSR 1918-1969

#1931 "three lines," bright green R 3.50 1.50
line perf. 12

#1931A two lines," yellow green 3.50 1.50
comb perf. 12x12

1976 #1931 "two lines" 6.00 1.50
comb perf. 12x12

#1931A "three lines" 3.50 1.50
line perf. 12

59

In this catalog, the name "Makhmud" was given for the first time in the
description of the issue. Also two million copies was given as the number issued
without a breakdown of the number of each variety.

1982 Price List of Soviet Stamps 1918-1980

#1931 "two lines" 10.00 3.00

#1931A "three lines" 15.00 5.00

The order of listing, the numbering, valuations and perforations are all
mixed. The perforations in the 1969 reference book are opposite to the 1972 and
1976 catalogs. However, significantly only one perforation is given for each
variety in each listing. Rossica Journal added to this jumbled mess in an article
in Volume 68, 1965. This article listed scarce perforation varieties of many
Soviet stamps, cross listed with several catalogs. This article said the "Makhmud
- two lines" perfed 12 was the scarce perforation, implying another perforation
for the same design variety. No mention was made of the second design with "three
lines."

A quick check of scme older Yvert, Gibbons and Borek catalogs all gave
greater values to the "two lines" variety but the information about the
perforations was incomplete. Yvert in 1971 simply gave 12x12. Gibbons in 1970
gave perf. 12 and Borek in 1974 said 12x12, 12 with no specifics about variety.

We see that confusion about the two varieties is widespread in all catalogs.
We are therefore left with the examination of stamps in our albums. Measurements
of perforations on numerous single copies in several collections showed the
following:
"two lines" variety, perfed 12
"three lines" variety, perfed 12x12

So far, no one variety was found with two perforations. Jounral readers are
asked to check their copies. The above examination did show minor color
variations of deep green and yellow green.

It is still not clear which is the first issue and which is the scarcer
variety. To try to define scarcity on the basis of catalog valuations is hopeless
in this case. The distribution of the varieties among the various world markets
may be partly responsible for the inconsistencies.

Catalogs are still the collector's best friend in collecting stamps. With
the multitude of new issues each year, it is a wonder that the catalog publishers
are able to keep up at all, let alone keep it all straight. Errors and confusion
will creep in which may never be corrected. One just has to be careful not to
accept everything in them as a certainty. In the example illustrated here, the
values of the stamps have became appreciable according to the catalogs so the
collector should be aware of the problems.

60

EXPERTIZATION OF ZEMSTVO COVERS

by D. Kuznetsov
[translated from Filateliya, June 1981 by David Skipton]

Zemstvo stamps that previously have gone through the mail can be used to fake
zemstvo covers (very often official correspondence). On such stamps the
cancellations do not extend beyond the boundaries of the stamps themselves, and
they can easily be "tied" to the envelopes. Such emissions include the stamps of
Borovichi District (UEZD), on which the initials of the postal clerk were written;
those of Vel'sk District, cancelled by an ink "X"; stamps of Cherdyn' District
with a small handstamp cancellation, and also those stamps of any districts
cancelled similarly. Special care must be exercised in approaching covers bearing
Borovichi Nos. 2 and 4. These rare stamps were quite successfully forged during
their period of cancellation, and (the forgeries) have often been used to fake
covers.

A forged No. 2 can be distinguished from an original only by its size. The
genuine stamp measures 17.5x22.25 mm, while the forged is 16.5x16.5 mm (according
to the Schmidt catalog).

The bogus No. 4 is evident by its somewhat different shade of bronze, but the
major difference is in the form of the letters and numbers and also in the
position of the text in relation to the stamp's frame. Expertization consists of
a detailed comparison of No. 4 with all 24 genuine types shown in the tables of K.
Schmidt's and A. Faberge's monograph. We have encountered an official envelope
that was faked with a bogus No. 4. The letter "K" on this stamp is radically
different from that on all genuine types--the vertical line of the "K" (in the
words "Borovichskaya," "Marks," and "Zemskaya) extends above the letter's outline.

However, a lack of coincidence between No. 4 under examination and those
shown in the table is not (a final) indication of its lack of genuineness.

At present, the dimensions of a sheet are unknown. It has been established
only that it consisted of 5 horizontal rows of stamps (but if the sheet was made
up of 25 stamps, then type 1 remains unknown, and if it were comprised of 30, then
6.) To establish the genuineness of a stamp, the type of which doesn't fit the
table's, it is necessary to conduct a graphological expertization to match it with
the handwriting of E. H. Dal'berg, who designed the stamp.

When analyzing a cover franked with Borovichi No. 4, collectors must keep in
mind that these emissions were in use only from 10 March to 15 April 1876. Any
date outside this period is a sign of fakery.

A knowledge of the district's postal regulations, stamps, and cancellations
is necessary when inspecting such covers:
the method of payment for sending private correspondence
(by postage stamps or some other means),
the (postage) rates,
the period of the stamp's use,
the type of cancel used,
the method of paying for mail delivered to the district from the state
post (by postage stamps or some other means),
distinctions between postage dues and normal stamps, and so forth.

61

Examination of covers with a postage due affixed may cause soae difficulties
because collectors are often unsure which stamp is the postage due and which the
postage paid. On some covers postage dues have been used to pay (the original
postage), and on others ordinary stamps are substituted for postage dues--this
also serves as one of the clues that fakery has occurred.

In Chuchin's zemstvo post catalog, to which the numbers in this text refer,
only those postage dues which bear overprinted texts describing their use can be
singled out (Bogorodsk, Dmitrovsk, Kolcmna, and Spassk Districts). However, a
number of districts besides those just mentioned also issued their own postage
dues. They differ from the ordinary stamps only in denomination, or in color when
the denomination is the same.

According to the 1893 Moens catalog, some of the following stamps are postage
dues: the reds of Anan'ev District, the 3-kopek blues of Ardatov District, the
blues of Akhtyrka, the reds of Bogorodsk (up to the issuance of stamps with
special text), the 6-kopeks on violet-rose paper of Dukhovshchina, the blues of
Kolamna (prior to the issuance of stamps with special text), the yellows of
Kotel'nich (before 1873), the blues and greens of Livnya, the blacks, golds,
silvers, and reds of Ryazan', the yellows, blacks, and greens of Starobel'sk, and
the blues of Khar'kov.

Other districts also had simultaneous issues of same-denamination stamps of
different colors that could be used either as postage or postage dues. For
instance, the blacks and blues of Vasil'ev District (3's 2-3), the blacks and
blues of Egor'ev District (#'s 1-8), the blues and reds of Perm' District
(#'s 5-8), the blacks and blues of Rzhev District (#'s 2-3), and those of Smolensk
District on light blue and rose background (3's 1-2).

No special postage dues were issued in other districts, although when the
need for dues arose, ordinary stamps were used. In Ves'egonsk and Ust'-Sysol'sk
Districts, postage stamps used as dues were cancelled by special handstamps
reading "Neoplacheno" (unpaid). Due to a depletion of postage dues (#2) stocks in
1879 in Dmitroysk District, ordinary stamps (#1) were used with the inscription
"Neoplacheno."

In Luga District the handstamp "Vzyskat' 5 kop." (collect 5 kopeks) was used
in place of a postage due stamp and in Dankov District--"Vzyskat' D.Z.P."

Let us examine instances of private correspondence franked with zemstvo
stamps in situations where a district used both normal and postage due stamps.

In a number of cases expertization of zemstvo covers can be quite complex.
For instance, to establish lack of authenticity for covers franked with Okhansk
District stamps, it was necessary to consult zemstvo documents for practically the
entire period of the Okhansk District's activities and to gather a large number of
covers from both Soviet and foreign collections ("Filateliya SSR," No. 7, 1980).

1The author has an envelope of a genuine insured letter from Cherdyn' District to
Ust'-Sysol'sk District on which a #16 has been used as a postage due. An
"X"-shaped Ust'-Sysol'sk zemstvo post handstamp cancelled it, but there is no
"neoplacheno" marking.

62

Figure 1..

Let's take a look at a rather "easy variety" of faked cover with triple
franking, which was sent in for expertization (See Figure 1). It is an ordinary
letter addressed to the grain merchant A. Cheremisin in the village of
Makar'evskoe, Kotel'nich District, Vyatka Province. The sender's address is
illegible. On the envelope is an imperial 7-kopek stamp cancelled with a circular
datestamp reading "Gryazovets Volog (da) P province ) -2-8-13" and (an arrival
marking) of Kotel'nich Vyatsk. G. -7-8-13."

On the back of the envelope above the seal is an uncancelled 1-kopek stamp of
the Gryazovets Zemstvo Post (#122), and on the front sicTe--a 2-kopek imperforate
stamp of the Kotel'nich Zemstvo Post (#24A). This (latter) stamp is cancelled
with a blue circular zemstvo handstamp showing the district coat-of-arms in the
center and the surrounding inscription "Kotel'nicheskoi Zemstvo Pochty". A
detailed examination of the envelope led to the conviction that it was a fake:

1. The cover in question actually did pass through the state post from
Gryazovets to Kotel'nich and through the zemstvo post from Kotel'nich to the
district.
2. The Gryazovets zemstvo stamp didn't belong to the cover because the ordinary
letter rate at that time in Gryazovets District was 4 kopeks, not one.
3. The Kotel'nich zemstvo stamp "used" as a postage due was also a latecomer to
the envelope on two counts:
a. the use of postage dues in Kotel'nich District was halted and ordinary
letters received from the state post were delivered by the zemstvo
post to the district free ("Filateliya SSR,: No. 7, 1976).
b. stamp #24 couldn't have been used because it was issued a year after
the letter went through the post (the K. Schmidt catalog).

2b cancel with such an inscription is listed in the Schmidt and Faberge
monograph.
63

4. Stamp #24A is actually #23. Before the cover was faked, the stamp's
perforations were cut off--it had earlier gone through the mail on another cover,
and a large part of a genuine cancellation still remained with the first word
reading "Kotel'nicheskoi."

Route taken by the letter: Franked with Franked with
Zemstvo stamps Stamps of the
of the of the State Post
sender's recipient' s
district district
(paid) (due)

I The letter went by the zemstvo post of one district

from village to village X
within the district

from the district town X
to its district

from the district to X -
the district town

from the state post X X
to the district

from the district to the X
district town and on by
state post

II The letter passed through two zemstvo posts of different districts

from one district to X X X
another of the same or
a different province

from a district to X
another district in
the same province, or to
a neighboring district
in the next province via
an inter-district zemstvo
post

Note: The word "district" (vezd) is understood as being any point within that
district.

It was forbidden by the postal department to have two zemstvos in direct postal
contact with one another because it deprived the department of a significant
amount fo revenue. However, in a number of places such as inter-district posts
were operated successfully.

64

5. After the stamp was affixed to the cover, the missing part of the
cancellation was added in blue ink, but the forger's unfamiliarity with the proper
form-"Kotel'nicheskoi Uyezdn Upravy" (Figure 2) (Kotel'nich District
Administration) -led them astray.

Figure 2

[Ed. note: The figure described as Figure 2 in the text is not given in the
original article. The figure shown appears to be the reverse of the cover in
Figure 1.]

Finally, let us look at still another category of cover. This kind is
franked with zemstvo stamps but never went through the zemstvo post.

We know that many (early) collectors to whom such letters were addressed
carried on a correspondence with the zemstvo administrations to obtain information
on the zemstvo stamps. They would also advance money to have the stamps sent to
them (upon issue). As a rule, these collectors would ask the administrations to
affix the zemstvo stamps to the reply letters which the latter willingly did,
cancelling the stamps on the letters with the zemstvo postmark. It is quite
evident that letters such as these, franked with imperial and zemstvo stamps,
cannot have gone through the zemstvo post because the senders (in this instance
the administrations) were in the district seat, and all mail sent outside the
district was transferred directly to the state post. Letters from such a
correspondence later got into the hands of other collectors who came to the
conclusion they were actually zemstvo covers. We must point out that the
administrations were quite acccmodating (to the requests of collectors),
cancelling stamps on separate pages, blocks of four, and even parts of sheets.
Displays of such material at philatelic exhibitions strikes one as rather curious
inasmuch as the total postage on each of these items considerably exceeds the
district's actual rate.

4The same applies to covers franked with stamps of Poltava District and addressed
* to P. P. Gan'ko in Poltava. The majority of these did not go through the zemstvo
post. One can also meet with completely "manufactured" Poltava District covers
that went through the post from the district, circular postmarks of the volost'
administrations are present.

65

JUST STAMPING AROUND

by Leonard Tann

A few months ago, we were down in London (from Manchester) for a bank
holiday weekend. My wife wanted to drag me off to visit an elderly aunt, while
one of my stamp magazines had advertised a local stamp fair a couple of miles
from this antique relative. I dutifully escorted my spouse, and after an hour
of small talk accompanied by plastic smiles, I promised to call back for my
"other half"; with a sigh of relief, I made my way to the stamp fair.

I did not expect any wondrous finds such as a cover with perfect postmarks
of an unrecorded station of the Chinese Eastern Railway--for a pound or two.
What I did find at one stand was an old club book half full of Romanov stamps
used on piece of the 1k 20k values. There were several station postmarks, a
TPO (No. 3) and other interesting markings, and at E4 (then around $7) I didn't
think I could go wrong.

Of the 73 items in the booklet (working out at approximately 10 each)
quite a fair number were in St. Petersburg. Very common you might say--and
probably worth only 10 each. But when you see quite a number together like
that, you begin to realize not only that the Czarist capital must have had
literally thousands of postal cancelers, but also how very different many of
them were. Indeed, we should be grateful that the Czarist bureaucracy was
muddled and somewhat inefficient. Otherwise standardization would have been the
order, depriving us of the interest of variety.

There are "S. PETERSBURG" postmarks with diameters of 22, 25, 30 mm and one
in the booklet, a 2k dated 27-XI-1914, with a massive 35 mm. This one, from
what appears to be district 1 EKSP, has the month in Roman figures and the year
in full.

22 mm 25 mm 35 mm

Bear in mind that there were many thousands of St. Petersburg cancelers
throughout the city and probably a couple of hundred more at the postal depots,
at the stations and on the various mail-trains on the St. Petersburg routes. So
when Czar Nicholas II decreed a change of name for the Imperial capital in the
earliest days of the war to the more slavic Petrograd, it must have taken time

66

to change all the cancelers, and one can find "St. Petersburg" markings still in
use by the end of 1914. My booklet included a 2k and 3k Romanov with "St.
Petersburg" postmarks dated respectively: 16-1-15 and 5-1-15. Has anyone later
strikes?

One nice pair of 15k stamps had two clear strikes of a postmark reading
merely: "MINSK GUB." Why Minsk Gubernia and not just Minsk? Or if it was the
city of Minsk itself, should it have not been-conforming to the usual
types-"MINSK MINSK G."?

Quite a few of the 1916 provisionals 10/7k Nicholas II and a single 20/14k
Catherine stamp brought the booklet to its close. A pair of Vitebsk Vozk., nice
singles with Smolensk Vokzal and Kiev Vokz., more 10/7k pairs with regular
Moscow, Mamishevak Ekat., Zhmerinka Pod., and Petrograd postmarks-all clearly
dated and not a single one after the March revolution were there.

I found nothing else at the fair and returned quite pleased to the aged
aunt's apartment--decorated in a style Queen Victoria would have found most
pleasing-where I sat next to an outsize aspidistra and smiling sweetly sipped a
cup of the most diabolically undrinkable tea I have ever had the misfortune to
be offered.

Duty done, as we got into the car my partner quizzed me on how much I had
spent. "Only E4," I answered. "That's alright," she (who must be obeyed)
replied. I had put the car into gear, and we drove off-me grinning like a cat
that's had the cream.

NOTICE

The Society has received the following request from Mr. Stefan Karadian of
7127 Brookridge Drive, West Bloanfield, Michigan 48033:

"I am in contact with a countryman of mine in Poland who is carpiling a
textbook on the 'Zemstvo-Russian Rural Post' stamps. He needs original
photographs of the stamps. I hope you can help me out by putting me in contact
with a collector in the area or the closest one."

The Editors are aware that there are a number of Zemstvo specialists among
the membership. Anyone willing to provide the assistance requested should
contact Mr. Karadian directly. Neither Mr. Karadian nor his Polish contact are
members of Rossica, and Rossica expressly disclaims any responsibility other
than to pass on Mr. Karadian's request.

RAILROAD LINES 125 and 126

by E. L. Blake and G. V. Shalimoff

In Rossica Journal 49/50, 1956, W. E. C. Kethroe and John Barry described a
mysterious double circle marking "ILINSKII POGOST 126 OREKHOVO" in their article
titled "Railway Postmarks of Imperial Russia." It was mysterious in that it did
not agree with the numbers on the usual oval railroad markings. On the oval
railroad marking, the number "126" belongs to the Pernov-Pskov route. No date
was given nor the stamp identified on which the marking was found.

From the accepted practice of the time, Kethroe and Barry expected a
marking for the opposite direction to read "OREKHOVO 125 ILINSKII POGOST.", but
all they found was a partial marking that read"...ZUEVO 125..." which confused
them because there was no station on that route with a name ending in those
letters. The stamp or date was not identified.

From several examples, we have been able to determine the correct markings
as "OREKHOVO-ZUEVO 125 ILINSKII POGOST" and for the opposite direction "ILINSKII
POGOST 126 OREKHOVO-ZUEVO," shown in Figures 1-5.

JU'
[

Figure 2 Figure 3

L ~KO i1i91 :1 -

Figure 1

Figure 4 Figure 5

In a modern atlas one finds about 60 miles east of Moscow a place called
Orekhovo-Zuevo with Ilinskii Pogost about 25 miles south of it. In an old atlas
such as the 1905 Mark's Atlas published in St. Petersburg, Orekhovo is indicated
as a railraod station and adjacent to it is a factory (zavod) called Zuevo with
a postal telegraph station.

68

Kethroe and Barry assumed "ZUEVO" was an ending of another word when in
fact it was the name of a place. It may not have appeared on the earlier
railroad lists which they studied because it was not a railroad station but
simply a place of same importance near the station at Orekhovo. In a
later article in Rossica Journal 58, 1960 they list a route from the 1912-1913
railroad list without a number as simply "OREKHOVO-ILINSKII Pogost" (known as
the Orekhovskaya route). This line was operated by or part of the Moscow-Kazan
Railroad Cacpany.

There is still another interesting aspect about this parking. The stamps
in Figures 1-3 are gummed, suggesting the marking is a CTO cancellation. The
full marking on the block of four has solid plug marks in place of the year
numerals, suggesting a deliberate attempt to conceal the supposed year of use on
the 1913 Romanov Jubilee stamp. The year marking on the 1931 Dirigible stamp
also is missing, but a trace of the marking in the perforation edge suggests it,
too, was a plug rather than a numeral.

The two RSFSR stamps in Figures 4 and 5 are gumless, but they are unusually
clean for "used" stamps of that period. The year again is missing with some
indistinct smudging in place of the year numerals. In view of the other
examples, one is tempted to assume these two RSFSR stamps are also CTO canceled.

In appears this rather obscure railroad marking was used by the Soviet
printing office to CTO obliterate RSFSR and Soviet stamps and remainders of the
Romanov Jubilee stamps as well.

CHANGES OF ADDRESS

735 Martin Cerini, 21 West 12th Street, Huntington Station, New York 11746

843 Philatelistische Bibliothek, Rosenheimer Str. 5, 8000 Munchen 80,
Federal Republic of Germany

855 Herman Z. Hirsch, 84 Louisa Chapel Rd., Franklin, North Carolina 28734

923 Robert W. Stuchell, 940 Cloverly Road, Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312

1077 George Bronson, 5 Stokes Drive, Stockbridge, Georgia 30281

1166 Gordey Denisenko, 9313 Coronado Terrace, Fairfax, Virginia 22031

1186 James Duffy, P.O. Box 15652, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105

1207 Ira Scott Ridless, 319 E. 24th Street, Apt. 8D, New York City,
New York 10010

1215 Karl Gebert, 1200 Milam, Suite 2900, Houston, Texas 77002

"BALACHOVKA"
THE ASOBNY ATRAD ISSUE
OF THE BIELARUSIN (BYELORUSSIAN) NATIONAL REPUBLIC

by William Lesh

Collectors often find in their albums or catalogs under the heading "White
Russia" five large stamps showing a young couple in the native dress of the
Vitebsk (Viciebsk) region. There is usually a note stating the stamps were
never issued. But there is more to these stamps than such simple statements,
and a short history of the situation which led to their creation is in order.

Bielarus' (Byelorussia, a term of uncertain origin) is a large region in
the western part of former Czarist Russia, adjacent to Poland, Ukraine, Russia
and what we now call the Baltic States. Although Bielarus' translates into
White Russia, it should not be confused with the so-called White faction that
fought against the Bolsheviks or Reds in the civil war following the 1917
Revolution. To further confuse the issue is the fact that today the approximate
same area is known as the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic of the USSR.
Instead we must consider Bielarus' in terms of its position in 1917-1920, a
territory with its own language, customs, slightly different alphabet, and its
own aspirations.

Much of the history of that period surrounds a Bielarusin soldier named
Stanislav Nikadzimavic Bulak-Balachovic (1883-1939). Balachovic volunteered for
service in the Czarist Russian Army in August 1914. Due to his bravery he had
risen to rank of captain of a calvary unit by the time of the Treaty of
Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918.

Fighting in the Baltic, Balachovic found himself near Pskov when the treaty
of Brest was signed. The treaty formally ended hostilities between the new
Soviet state and Germany, but the German armies continued to advance. The
severe terms of the treaty removed vast western territories frca Russian
control, and the scramble was on by various groups to consolidate their
positions. Balachovic secured permission from a local committee to form a
regiment near Luga which was organized in April 1918. In October 1918 with the
help of the anti-Bolshevik (White) Captain Neff and his Northern Corps,
Balachovic retired to Pskov with more than 1,000 men. See Figure 1.

After the armistice in November 1918, the now Colonel Bulak-Balachovic came
under General Alexander Pavlovich Rodzianko, a Russian calvary officer who
fought on the Estonian front against the Reds from February 1919. On May 15,
1919 the Balachovic group with the Estonian Baltic Battalion made a raid on Gdov
and held it from the Reds for several days. Rodzianko and his troops were
forced by the Reds to retire from Pskov in May. Estonian troops liberated Pskov
from the Reds and on May 30, 1919 Balachovic was installed as the military
carmander of the area.

On June 15, 1919 General Nicholas N. Yudenich was given command of the
Russian forces formerly operating with the Estonian Army. On August 11, 1919
the Provisional Government of the North West Territory was formed. Its area of
influence was outside of Estonia, stretching from Narva to Pskov.

70

0\ FINLAND

ampLt OF r ULD

"* PAVL OaVK
e STONIA. o

LATVIA
J ^, RSFSR
/ #r LITHUANIA

U) 0w *

WARSAW BIELARU5'

LUBLI bWIV IK0 T S
"" ZMB 81L^US

aW
mA.

"UKRAINE ,. "

Figure 1

Note: The boundaries shown on this map are the present boundaries of the
various Soviet republics. This map is intended to show only the places
mentioned in the article and not the specific territorial or political divisions
of the period. Names in parentheses are present day names of some of the
places.

71
J aiSt O>J F
^^ tO~AVNO/

\^ UKRINE *(RS <
notlCMVV>~u
( *A* UWIA

Figure
Note:1,131 Th onaissono hsma r h rsn onaisof the
* vari )ousSve eubis hsma sitnedt hwolytepae
mentioned~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ inteatceadno h pcfctr itoil rpoiialdviin
of heperod Naesinparntese ae pesntdaynaes f omeofth
places.P

WI~RSI I BILAR 71

On August 23, 1919 Balachovic was removed as commander of the Pskov area.
On August 27th the Soviets reoccupied Pskov. General Yudenich's North West Army
began its assault on Petrograd on September 28th. On October 1st, Balachovic
broke the Red lines at Bulata. On October 12th Yamburg was in White hands, and
Pskov was recaptured on the 15th. But at this time Balachovic was no longer
with the army. Evidently some bad blood existed between him and Yudenich. On
October 21, 1919 the North West Army occupied Pavlovsk, but a retreat followed
almost immediately and by late November thousands of refugees and army remnants
poured into Estonia.

In early August 1919 Czarist definitive stamps were overprinted in cyrillic
"Sev. Zap. Armii" (meaning North West Army) in two lines at the Matviev Printing
Works in Pskov. Examples are shown in Figures 2 and 4 with details of genuine
overprints shown in Figures 3 and 5, as indicated by A. Rosselevitch in Rossica
Journal No. 51, 1957.

0qT ODBA AMAN Ab,

kopek values Ruble values
5--

Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5

In theory these stamps were to be used within the area controlled by the
North West Provisional Government. The overprinted stamps were issued in August
and were used in Pskov during the Balachovic Cacmand period. Genuine double
circle Pskov town cancels have the cyrillic marker letters "**u", "**e" and
"**^", shown in Figures 6-8. The oval Pskov station cancel is also known on
this issue (Figure 9). All markings shown here were taken from Dr. R. J.
Ceresa's book, "The Postage Stamps of Russia 1917-1923, Vol. 3. The Armies,
Parts 1/2 The Northwest and Northern Armies." They are not shown to scale here.

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9
Pskov **u Pskov**e Pskov **J

For the regions nearer the front, another series of five stamps were
prepared and issued by the Special Corps of the Northern Army under General
Rodzianko. This was part of the North West Army of General Yudenich. This

72

series is ccmnonly called the O.K.C.A. issue (abbreviation for Special Corps of
the Northern Army) and are shown in Figure 10. They are not known used in
Pskov.

Figure 10

Both of the above issues are found with guarantee marks of various military
units in the margins of full sheets. It is not known if Balachovic's group
participated in this practice. Both of these issues are mentioned here because
they were issued and in use at the time Balachovic was military ccmaander in
Pskov. Details of their types, use, and forgeries are beyond the scope of this
article.

On November 14, 1919 Balachovic, then in Dorpat, wrote a formal letter to
Colonel Kastus Ezavitau (Yezivitov) (1894-1945), Chief of the Bielarusin
Military and Diplomatic Mission to Latvia and Estonia, offering to place his
detachment at the disposal of the Bielarusin National Republic (BNR--declared in
Minsk on March 25, 1918). Ezavitau accepted Balachovic's offer the following
day.

A couple of weeks later, the story goes, Balachovic kidnapped Yudenich and
held him for ransom. Yudenich was saved by the Estonians to whom he owed money.

In late December, Balachovic was now a Major General and had over 1,000 men
on the Ostrov front and others on the Pskov front as part of the Second Estonian
Division standing against the Bolsheviks. Count Pahlen, leader of the First
Division of the Russian North West Army, promised to join him when funds became
available.

On January 29, 1920 the Treaty of Dorpat was signed between Estonia and the
RSFSR and all non-Estonian forces were forced to leave Estonia. Around February
1920 Balachovic's forces were centered around the towns of Aluksne and Gulbene
in Latvia. Soon after, Balachovic and his men traveled south, arriving in
Poland in late April or early May, probably at the urging of Anton Luckevic,
then President of the BNR.

As early as October 1919 the BNR set up enlistment stations in Minsk and
Vilna. The volunteers consisted of formed Czarist officers and displaced
persons. They were later transferred to the Balachovic group when it joined the
Polish Army.

In April 1920 a Russian political committee of Socialists, Social-
Revolutionaries and Constitutional Democrats, all anti-Bolsheviks, was set up in
Warsaw. Boris Savinkov was appointed head of the War Department of that
cacrittee.

73

On April 25, 1920, Marshall Pilsudski of the Polish Republic opened his
offensive and attacked Bolshevik forces in the Ukraine. Under an agreement with
the Ukranian Ataman Petlura, an Ukranian buffer state was to be created between
Poland and Russia. This agreement made it impossible for Poland to inaugurate
its usual field post services in that territory. Instead stage post offices or
line-of-ccmmunications field post offices (poctza etapowa) were used in Ukraine.
The stage post offices were opened on May 28, 1920.

W. Kowarzyk in his article "Polish Field Post Service 1918-1921" (British
Journal of Russian Philately No. 61, 1984) lists Balachovic as using the Poczta
Etapowa (stage post) #202 from May 29, 1920 until June 13, 1920 (later it was
used in Kovel). See Figure 11 for a similar type of cancellation. The Polish
Ruch catalog lists this number as being used in Bar, Podolia province, Ukraine
during this period. Both the Kowarzyk and Ruch lists correlate the other Poczta
Etapowa numbers, so I must assume that the Balachovic group was in Bar.

17 111 1921

Figure 11

I also assume Balachovic remained in Polish service until July 20, 1920
when his group came under the Russian committee. Around this time Pilsudski and
Savinkov agreed to allow the Poles and Savinkov's groups to fight together
against the Soviets. By August there were some 7,000 men under Savinkov's
command.

Balachovic and his "Death Division" were stationed near Lubartov, just
north of Lublin on August 12, 1920. On August 19 Balachovic and Major
Jarworski's volunteers captured Brest-Litovsk, and on August 25 Zhabinka fell.
In September Balachovic joined by the infantry division under Colonel Micoszi,
slipped past the left wing of Shuvayev's Red IVth Army. On September 26th
Balachovic emerged from the marshes of the Pripet to the north of Pinsk,
scattering the Soviet IVth Army headquarters, but Shuvayev escaped. The IVth
Army's 17th cavalry division defected to Balachovic. In Balachovic's rear at
Kobrin another division under Major General Yaroslavtseev and a supply of Red
prisoners of war would soon join Balachovic.

By October Savinkov had more than 60,000 men under his command, led by
Balachovic, Peremykin, Yakovlev and ostensibly those commanded by Petlura.
Savinkov, with orders from the Polish command, delivered plans for Petlura and
Yakovlev to attack the Reds pressing Wrangel's forces from Rovno and Proskurov.
Balachovic and Peremykin were to tie up the Red forces in Bielarus'.

On October 12 a Bielarusin political committee in Warsaw agreed to supply
Balachovic with recruits. The Green Oak partisans, then behind Soviet lines,
were placed under his command.

74

At the time of the preliminary peace treaty between Poland and Soviet
Russia, Balachovic had concentrated 7,860 bayonets and 3,500 sabres in the towns
of Turov and David-Gorodock.

On October 21, 1920 the Polish Republic declared it would sever the
relations that existed between the Polish Army and the Whites. On October 25th
Balachovic joined his troops at Turov. He issued an order on November 5th to
attack Mozyr, Ovruch and Zhlobin and destroy the Soviet power there. The attack
began the next day. The forces were arranged as follows: the Death and cavalry
divisions were concentrated on the right bank of the Pripet River and Micoszi's
group and an uhlan (mounted) regiment moved toward Zhlobin along the left bank.
Yaroslavtseev was held in reserve while the Peasant Brigade of Iskra-Lokhvistsky
moved on the right flank toward Yelsk and Ovruch.

On November 8th, the Death Division reached Petrikov, attacking the 83rd
and 84th Regiments of the 16th Soviet Army. These units gave way to the Death
Division on November 10th and Petrikov was captured. Balachovic's forces
advanced along the line of Jakimovichi-Kochuro-Pripet occupying Mozyr and were
poised to attack the Kalinkovichi railway junction.

On November 12th Balachovic arrived to cheers in Mozyr; the streets were
draped in the Bielarusin tricolor (white-red-white). The Bielarusin political
committee asked Balachovic to became the chief of the Bielarusin state. He
accepted and announced the re-establishment of the Bielarusin National
Republic.

On November 16, 1920 the Micoszi forces northwest of Domanovichi were
defeated by the Soviets. On November 19th the Death Division and cavalry
division were routed by the Soviets at Rechitsa.The Soviets advanced along the
entire front on November 22nd and the last of the Balachovic units were forced
into Polish territory on December 28, 1920. They were interned at Siniavcy,
near Bialystok. Identified as "Siniavskaya slaboda", this small town was
destroyed by the Germans in World War II. A Polish field post cancel #71
identified as used at a POW "station" at Bialystok might be associated with this
internment of Balachovic. A similar example is shown in Figure 12, taken
from the Kowarzyk article cited above. This office opened January 20, 1920 and
was closed March 10, 1921 which would have put it into the correct period.

Balachovic is believed to have died in Warsaw in 1939.

-6 VI. 1921

Figure 12

75

In addition to the stamps and markings already mentioned that were
associated with the Balachovic era, there is also an issue which I call the
Second BNR Bulak-Balachovic Issue (2nd BNR B-B). In the early part of 1920 when
the Balachovic group was in Latvia, a set of five stamps appeared inscribed
"ASOBNY ATRAD / B.N.R." meaning Special Detachment of the BNR (Figures 13-17).

Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15

Figure 16 Figure 17

Readers may ask here if the Asbony Atrad stamps are the second issue, what is
the first? The First BNR Issue was ordered when the Bielarusin National
Republic was declared on March 25, 1918. A set of three different plates were
prepared, but it is believed they were not used until a printing from them was
made in Kaunas, Lithuania in 1921. This issue is beyond the scope of this
article although illustrations of the stamps are shown on in Figures 18-20.

76

Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20

To clear up same of the speculation about the Asobny Atrad issue, I
reproduce here a translation of an article in Der Baltische Philatelist, April
1920, pages 13-14, published in Libau (Liepaja), Latvia. The article was
written by Georj H. Jaeger and was entitled "Briefmarken des Weissrussischen
Arnee" in which the following official document was reprinted.

"La mission militat diplomatique
de la Republique Democratique
Blanche-Rutrenienne,
en Latwija & Eesti,
le 15. Mars 1920
Nr. 282.

Herrn Jaeger

As a finished product we are able to reveal a very handsome
series of stamps of the Army Corps of the Bielarusin
National Republic under General Bulak-Balachovic and would
like to report a complete set of 5 values: 5, 10, 15, 50
kop. and 1 (Ost) Ruble (1 Ost Ruble = 2.- Mk.).

I would like to take a position and bring forth a copy of an
official document concerning this issue.

On the question concerning Bielarusin postage stamps with
the inscription "ASOBNY ATRAD B.N.R." I reply thus:

1. The postmark of the "Asobny Atrad B.N.R. is from a
particular army corps of the Bielarusin National Republic
which is under the canmand of one Bulak-Balachovic. This
set was issued to the group under the well-known name
"Balachovka."

77

2. The stamps have been assigned to the field post office
in the territory of the Corps and used for the sending of
correspondence out of this area (in northern Latvia) to
Bielarus'. Until recently the Corps took part in the
anti-Bolshevik front between the Estonian and Latvian
armies.

3. The emission of these stamps is a result of the
acceptance of a particular resolution of a Ccmmission of the
Bielarusin Army Corps and the Chiefs of the Miltary
Diplomatic Mission of the Bielarusin National Republic of
February 3, 1920.

4. The stamps were initiated by a special order of the
Finance Ministers of the Expediation for the Manufacture of
Government Paper to the State Printing Office of Latvia to
print 1,000,000 sets of 5 stamps in the values of 5, 10, 15,
50 and 100 kops. eastern currency.

Signed:
Chief of the Mission: Coloney K. Ezavitau

p. pa. Secretary: Stankevic"

Let me make a few comments to the numbered sections of this document that
described the origin of the Asobny Atrad issue.

1. The postmark mentioned is inscribed *PALEVAYA KANTORA* ASOBN. BELARUSK.
ATRAD." meaning the Field Office Special Bielarusin Detachment. See Figure 21,
taken framn the Rossica Journal #66, 1964 in an article by R. Polchaninoff. The
outer ring is 29 mm in diameter, the inner ring is 17 mm with an 11.5 mm bridge.
It is known in gray and black inks. The black ink examples that I have seen all
bear the date "17 4 20." This is a CTO cancel and is found on covers, cards and
single stamps.

7 -

Figure 21 ..

Figure 22

The gray ink examples bear various dates and thus far are known only on
single stamps or on piece. Five kopek stamps are known dated "1? 3 20" and
"10 4 20." The one ruble stamp shown in Figure 22 is printed lightly to show
the date "23 4 20" (A. Sadovnikov collection). I consider these stamps
genuinely used.
78

Whether it was the army group or the stamps that were known as
"Balachovka," one must interpret for himself from the original German text of
the article where the document states: "...herausgegeben und bei de Bevolksrung
unter dem Namen "Balachowka" bekannt."

2. The territory of the Corps at that time included Aluksne, Gulbene and
other unspecified areas.

3. The document states the printing total approached one million copies of
each value. The number of stamps printed in a sheet was 112 (14x8) which would
give a total number of 999,936 for each value based on complete sheets.
According to Jaeger in his article, one half of the printed issue was
perforated, that is 499,938 copies, and the rest left imperforate except for the
10 kop. value of which only 249,984 copies were perforated, or one fourth of the
printing.

The perforations usually found on this issue measure 11xll. On rare
occasions one may find examples perforated 11x11.

I do not know of any private or commercial covers, only reports of them.
One was reported by Mr. J. Dziemidzik, Linn's Stamp News, January 1, 1973, in
his article titled "Byelorussia Ancient, Dead Country with an Interesting
Philatelic History," as a letter from Latvia to Bielarus dated "10 4 20."
Another report is from a gentleman who saw one delivered to an acquaintance in
Minsk.

Mail from Latvia probably would have passed through Dvinsk (now Daugavpils)
on the Polish occupied frontier into Polish occupied Bielarus. Dvinsk was freed
from the Soviets by Polish and Latvian forces on January 15, 1920. A Polish
post office had been in place in Minsk since August 13, 1919. The Poles also
allowed the BNR to return to this capital city. An exchange could have been
possible for mail between Latvia and Bielarus, or the Corps nail may have been
carried by special courier.

Two other items from a later period are a cover noted by Dr. Ceresa bearing
a "Skobelevskii Lager" marking, a postal branch on the Alexander Railway in
Movogrudok Uyezd although the stamps involved and date were not given, and a set
of the Asobny Atrad issue canceled "Kharkov" of unknown origin.

According to the book Why was the BPR Never Formed? by I. Kovkel and N.
Stashkevitch, page 74, a civil administration was set up by the Bielarusin
political committee after Balachovic's occupation of Mozyr. "But it only
managed to issue same stamps of the Bielarusin People's (read National, W.L.)
Republic and a stamp for the capture of Mozyr." The BNR stamps must have been
the Asobny Atrad set printed in Latvia and possibly the first BNR set of three
if it was already printed at that time. However, the "stamp" for the capture of
"Mozyr" is unknown.

Traditionally the Asobny Atrad issue (2nd BNR B-B issue)is said to have
been designed by R. Zarrins. I believe this is true for all values with the
possible exception of the 15 kopec value. He may have designed that value as
well.

It is obvious the 15 kopek value differs from the other values, especially
in the lettering in the top tablet. The lettering on the 15 kopek value is thin

79

(Figure 15) capared to the lettering on the other values. The dimensions of
the 15 kopek value are 33.5 x 26.4 mm whereas the other values measure 33 x
25.75 na. In addition, the 15 kopek sheet was certainly prepared differently
because its transfer marks indicate an intermediate plate of impression in a 4
by 2 arrangement whereas the transfer marks of all other values indicate a 5 by
2 arrangement. (An intermediate plate is a group of stamp impressions in a
small block which is repeated over the lithographic stone to obtain the proper
sheet size.) Transfer characteristics of each value are shown in Figures 23-27.

The 5 by 2 transfer arrangement I would ordinarily label the stamps in the
ABCDE ABCD
order E and for the 4 by 2 arrangement ABCD The actual transfer arrange-

ment is unknown for the 5 kopek, but the characteristics and relative positions
for this value are shown in Figure 23. Qily three characteristics are shown for
the 10 kopek transfer plate in Figure 24. The 4 by 2 arrangement for the 15
kopek is shown in Figure 25. For the 50 kopek the arrangement again is unknown
but relative positions of characteristics are shown in Figure 26. The transfer
plate of the 1 ruble value is shown in Figure 27.

The Jaeger article notes a light blue version of the dark blue 50 kopek
value. I have never seen one.

\ '-. V,.
n i r-11 i, -te

S... .. I A

Figure 23 5 kopek value

SA -11/4
J A ',

Figure 24 10 kopek value
80

B) Phantom Transfer-
Dot Intermittent In
Position B

A) Break B) Dot

E) Dot H) Dot

Figure 25 15 kopek value

I 'I -

.

Figure 26 50 kopek value

A lB C D W\

""k ,. M ,/f SP /T Rw
, i- s"r^/s?/ 1 i / K Y
Figure 27 1 ruble value
81

At least four different counterfeits of this issue are known. P.
Polchaninoff in his column "Ugolok Kelleltsionera" in the Russian Daily Novoe
Russkoye Slovo, April 24, 1973 mention five different counterfeits, but I only
know of four. Their characteristics are given in Table I. See also the Figures
28-31.
To compound the problem, Guy Picarda in a communication to me, stated that
around 1939 this issue was "reprinted by the BNR in exile in Prague and Paris."
As yet nothing in the way of evidence has come to light.

Figure 28 Figure 29

WO IE C

Figure 30 Figure 31

82

OLE I

Genuine Counterfeit I Counterfeit II Counterfeit III Counterfeit IV
(Ceresa's Fl) (F4) (F2) (F3)

Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31

Printing Lithographed Lithographed Typographed Stereotyped Photolithographed
process

Size of 15k 26%x33 263x33nmm 26ix34mm 25 3/4x325mm 15k 26x33nm
specimen others: (Ceresa (Ceresa others: 26x32 3/4
26x33rm 26 3/4x33jm) 25 3/4x32 3/4mm) or 25 3/4x32 3/4 mm

Paper Very thin Ordinary Thick Ordinary Ordinary
White White Greyish-white White White
Semi-transparent Porous Porous Nonporous Nonporous
Wove Wove Wove Wove Wove

Gum White, yellow White or Yellowish hori- White None
Sor brownish yellow zontally ribbed

Type Type I 15k Similar to Similar to Similar to Similar to
Type II others Type II Type II Type II Type I 15k
Type II others

Perfora- Imperforate Imperforate Imperforate Imperforate Imperforate
tions Line (often Perf 10 or Perf 11 Perf 11 3/4
rough) p. 11 114
or llxll

Sheet size 112 (14x8) 112 (14x8) 50 (10x5)
Rooke '59

Characteristics Good (save for Poor, values Probably a Close to originals
15k value) inserted by copy of CI sometimes poorly
plugs though smaller printed
Cancels BNR Detachment Russian eagle, Partial
Cancel, Kharkiv double ring "AMBOI"
4 (bogus?) cancel cancel

Of all the counterfeits listed in the table, Counterfeit I is the most
dangerous and the most canmon. But there are telltale signs. The most notable
is the cyrillic letter "D," the last letter on the top line. On the genuine
stamp the flag on the top left side of the letter "D" is nearly severed from the
body, as shown in Figure 32. On the counterfeit, this area is filled in more
(Figure 33). On genuine stamps, three dots appear to the right of the nick in
the man's collar (Figure 32). In Counterfeit I, there are either two, one, or
no dots (Figure 33).

ILAI

Figure 32 Figure 33

I would be most interested in hearing from anyone who has any interest or
other information in this area.

I would like thank the following for their help with this study: Mr. Guy
Picarda, Dr. Ray Ceresa, Mr. Gregg Whitt, Mr. Michael Hitrovo, the late Mr.
Andrejs Petrevics, and especially Mr. Bohdan Pauk.

NEW MEMBERS (continued)

1226 Perry E. Arnquist, 429 Hollister Avenue, Rockford, Illinois 61108

1227 Daniel G. Hamrell, 1227 Moore Street, Bel oit, Wisconsin 53511

1228 Georgy Tarala, 1610 No. Prospect Avenue, Apt. 303, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53202

1229 James A. Barr, P.O. Box 652, San Francisco, California 94101

1230 William G. Smith, 1557 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles,
California 90026

1231 Richard D. Sampson, P.O. Box 841, Barrow, Alaska 99723

1232 Thomas E. Chastang, 6104 Georgetown Road, Apt. E, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46254

84

SOVIET POSTS IN THE WESTERN UKRAINE 1939-1941

by M. Shmuely

INTRODUCTION

For over 20 years I have been collecting every possible item (cancelled
stamps, cut-outs, and letters) relating to the Postal History of the Western
Regions of the U.S.S.R. 1939-1941. (See the article by Mr. A. S. Waugh in the
British Journal of Russian Philately No. 52, December 1975, which
authoritatively defines the subject.)

In Issue No. 83 of Rossica (1973) the Editorial Board published an article
which made a thorough study of everything known up to that time on the subject
of philately of the Western Ukraine 1939-1941. Very little could be added to
the content of this article then. Yet ten years have passed since that time,
and we may assume that new material and new facts have been discovered. I
therefore bring up the subject again in the hope that members who may know of or
have additional material in their possession can be encouraged to publish and
illustrate them.

TRANSITION PERIOD 1.IX.39 16.IX.39

According to the German-Soviet Treaty of Non-Aggression signed in Moscow on
24.VIII.1939 the German and Soviet influence regions were determined. After the
German Army attack on 1 September 1939, the Germans would reach the Stryj -
L'vov Socal areas. On 17.IX.1939 the Red Army went into the area of Poland
which it had been agreed would be under its domination; and the German-Soviet
border was established in a line along the Vistula Bug Sokolya San Rivers.
It is of interest to note that in this interim period between the outbreak of
war and the entry of the Red Army, the Polish Postal Service continued to
operate. To provide an example, I show two envelopes from this period:

Figure 1 an envelope dated 3.IX.1939 sent frma Kopyczynce (Tarnopol
Postal District) to Boston in the U.S.A., censored by the
Polish censor, and returned to the sender by the Germans.

Figure 2 a postcard from Rovno to Haifa, Palestine. It was written on
the 16.IX.1939 but the cancel date was 9.IX.1939. The card was
censored by the Polish censor and by the Palestine censor, and
reached its destination.

STAMPS AND RATES

According to Prof. Laskiewicz, the above article in Rossica includes a
comparison of Polish stamps and postal rates, and a number of letters such as
these are mentioned (including mixed values of Polish and Soviet stamps). To my
regret all the photographs are either philatelic letters or cut-outs, but there
is no photograph of a standard letter (non-philatelic).

In the May issue of Soviet Philately, Kolosov writes about the Western
Byelorussian post during this period. When he mentions letters from the early
days, he shows a letter that was returned since it was posted with a Polish
stamp, and there is a note: "Returned to be paid for in Soviet stamps."
85

Iift, Io cwy

r P T (X 193A) nEO Oon
L,, nocrto w

Fig. 1

POLSKA-- POLOGNE

IKARITKA PI(: ( )\TVA >- 'A P I (

NAAWCA EXPOEDTFUR L

"F" g. 2
86

,P.

P, P T. T (Vt- 1I3R) 20O 000.

Fig. 2

86

We may assume that a similar situation existed in the Western Ukraine,
i.e., that comparable Polish stamps were forbidden. As an example I show:

Figure 3 a postcard from Rokitno (Volyn Postal District) written in the
30.XI.1939, which received a Polish cancel on 1.XII.1939. It
passed through L'vov on 6.XII.39, reaching Tel Aviv in Palestine
where it was censored. It is interesting to note that the post-
card was first franked with Polish stamps, but they are
cancelled with ink and Soviet stamps are pasted onto them. I
have a number of other such examples in my collection.

-J1-- 4 S ?KAk fU

S-*, bS ."' 4 -' ^ ,

*I (1 I + "~ ~ '

Fig. 3

CANCELLATIONS FROM THE WESTERN UKRAINE IN ADDITION TO THOSE MENTIONED IN THE

I have attached a table to this article showing the cancellations which I
have in my collection that were not mentioned in the above article. For
convenience I have divided them according to Postal Districts and indicated the
type of item (cancellation on a stamp, cut-out, postcard or letter), date, and
type of cancel (Polish Russian, or Russo-Ukrainian).

[Ed. note: In his basic manuscript for this article, Mr. Shmuely provided
extensive figures illustrating the cancellations in the table. Unfortunately,
the quality of the reproductions provided was either illegible or the copy
provided or would not reproduce legibly with the photo lithographic process
which is employed by the Rossica printers.]

87

Post Office Cancel Language Date Item

A. DROGOBYCH POSTAL DISTRICT (DROHOBYCZ)

Dobromil' bi 26.VII.40. c.o.

Krukenitsa bi ....... 40. st.

Morshin Ru 22.XI.39. st.

Skole Ru 6.1.40. st.

Skole bi 11.VIII.40. st.

Turka bi 22.II.40. st.

B. L'VOV CITY POSTAL DISTRICT (LWCW)

L'vov 1 D bi 20.IV.40. st.

L'vov 1 U bi 19.1.40 st.

L'vov 1 M bi 3.VII.40. st.

L'vov 1 H bi 10.X.40. st.

L'vov 1 SH bi ...VII.40. st.

L'vov 1 Z bi 19.II.40 RPC

L'vov 2 Po 17.III.40 PC

L'vov 6 0 bi 29.X.40. PC

L'vov 11 A bi 26.1.41 re

L'vov 11 B bi 19.III.40. st.

L'vov 13 I bi 27.XI.40. st.

L'vov 16 B bi 30.XI.40. st.

L'vov 17 B bi 1.XII.40. PC

L'vov 17 G bi 1.IV.40. RPC

L'vov 18 B bi 23.VIII.40. st.

L'vov 19 I bi 27.VI.40. st.

L'vov Zh.D.P.O. bi 6.V.40. PC

L'vov C bi 22.1.40. PC

88

Post Office Cancel Language Date Item

C. L'VOV PROVINCE POSTAL DISTRICT (POWIAT LWOWSKI)

Brody D bi 10.X.40. c.o.

Brody D Po 21.XII.39. st.

Gorodok bi ......... st.

Khodorov (L'vov Dist.?) bi 23.IV.40. c.o.

Korecki (Rovno Dist.?) bi 5.XI.40. st.

Lubiczew bi ......... st.

Mosciska Po 21.XI.39. PC

Olesko bi 25.1.1940 st.

Pluhow bi 5.VI.1940. st.

Peremyshlyany Po 1.XII.1939 st.

Radekhov bi 13.II.1941 st.

Raua Russkaya bi 21.X.1940 PC

Raua Russkaya bi 6.XII.1940. st.

Raua Russkaya B bi 1.X.1940. st.

Senyawa a bi 10.IX.1940. st.

Sokal bi 16.II.1940. st.

Sudowa Wishna bi 1.11.1940. L.ent.

Zowkwa B bi 10.V.1940. c.o.

D. ROVNO POSTAL DISTRICT (ROWNE)

Dubno bi 3.IV. 1940. st.

Dcmbrownicza bi 27.II.1941. PC

Kostopol Po 11.VII.1940. st.

Ludwipol bi 3.IX.1940 inv.tr.

Miedzyrzec k. Korzsa Po ........1939. st.

Mizoch bi 25.IV.1940. st.

89

Post Office Cancel Language Date Item

ROVNO POSTAL DISTRICT (continued)

Mlinov c Po 30.1.1940. st.

Rovno 1 b Po 27.IX.1939. PC

Rovno 1 u Po 13.XII.1939. c.o.

Rovno 1 b bi 21.VI.1940. st.

Rovno 1 g bi 21.IV.1940. RPC

Rovno z bi 2.IX.1940. inv.tr.

Rovno 1 bi 20.IX.1940. L.

Rovno 9 bi ...V.1940. st.

Sarny bi 26. ...... st.

Vladimir Volynskiy bi 3.V.1940. st.

Zalucza Po 5.IX.1939. st.

Zdolbunov Po 10.XI.1939. st.

Zdolbunov bi 3.1.1940. st.

E. STANISLAV POSTAL DISTRICT (STANISLAWOW)

Bolekhov Po ........... st.

Bukachevtsy bi 13.1.1940. st.

Gvozdets Po 21.III.1940. st.

Kalush Po ........... st.

Kolcmyya g Ru 10.X.1940. st.

Kolomyya u Ru 8.VI.1940. st.

Kosov Po 20.III.1940. PC

Kuty A bi 31.V.1940. PC

Mikuliczyn Po ....XII.1939. st.

Stanislav b Ru 21.1.1940. PC

Stanislav v Ru 21.IX.1940. PC

90

Post Office Cancel Language Date Item

STANISLAV POSTAL DISTRICT (continued)

Stanislav v Ru 21.VIII.1940. PC

Stanislav u Ru 2.VIII.1940. PC

Stanislav u Ru 21.IX.1940. PC

Stanislav 2 h Po 27.XII. 1939. st.

Stryy a bi 10.II.1941. st.

Stryy b bi 27.XII.1939. c.o.

Stryy 2 e Po 10.II.1940. L

Zabolotov Uk 11.III.1940. PC

F. TERNOPOL POSTAL DISTRICT (TARNOPOL)

Bol'shovtsy bi 10.1.1940. st.

Buchach 9 Po 12.XII.1939. st.

Buchach g bi 2.II.1940. st.

Dederkaly a bi 19.1.1940. st.

Janow bi 11.VII.1940. st.

Kopychintsy Po 3.IX.1940. st.

Podgaytsy bi 3.IV.1940. st.

Proszowa bi ......... st.

Ternopol B Ru 8.VI.1941. PC

Ternopol zh bi 10.XII.1940. st.

Ternopol 1 bi 20.VII.1940. st.

Ternopol e Ru 11.II.1940. PC

Ternopol Po 23.X. ..... st.

Tolstoye g bi 9.1.1941. PC

Zbarazh d Po 25.XI.1939 RL

Zborov bi 1.XI.1940. st.

91

Post Office Cancel Language Date Item

TERNAPOL POSTAL DISTRICT (continued)

Zolochev D bi 7.IV.1941. PC

Zolochev Zh bi 16.V.1940. PC

Zolochev U bi 23.IV.1940. RPC

G. VOLIN POSTAL DISTRICT (WOLYN)

Kovel 1 K Po 27.IX.1939. PC

Kovel 1 K Po 12.XII.1939. PC

Kovel 1 K Po 23.II.1940. PC

Kovel D bi 21.III.1940. PC

Kovel E bi 28.III.1940. PC

Kovel e bi 28.IV.1940. PC

Lyubcml' a bi 4.II.1940. st.

Lyuboml' b bi 18.III.1940. PC

Lutsk bi 13.V.1941. RPC

Maniewicze Po 3.II.1940. st.

Maczeew Ru 23.III.1941. PC

Mielnica Po .......1939. st.

Olyka a bi 7.III.1940. st.

Poritsk bi 19.VI.1940. st.

Rokitno Po 1.XII.1939. PC

H. PEREMISHL TERRITORY (PRZEMYSL)

Peremishl u bi 17.IX.1940. PC

Peremirshl a bi 12.III.1940. L

Peremishl k bi ........... st.

Mistoy bi 18. ....... st.

The city of Peremischl was divided between the Soviets and the Germans. Fig. 4
presents a sample from the German zone of this city (German Peremishl c).

92

Cancel Language Item Abbreviations

Ru = Russian arriv. canc. = arrival cancel

Po = Polish c.o. = cut-out

Uk = Ukrainian inv. tr. = invitation for trial

bi = bilingual E = entire

L = letter

PC = postcard

R = registered

st. = loose stamp

[Ed. note: Where possible, the city and district names have been spelled as
they appear in the National Geographic Society gazeteer. In those cases where
no such listing was found, the spellings were left as provided by Mr. Shmuely.]

SUMMARY

I hope some members have information on interesting cancellations in this
area in their collections. Also it would be interesting to know if there are
any letters with mixed franking (Polish-Russian) that were sent through the Post
and reached their destinations.

I Bbfea6et .....- .....

(Xq... ..... b.s .rappeakila 310 bif.afi.b %. 9.. ..........

Figure 4
... ........ W W i

........................................................ .. .............

y (J (11. 3..833 2A DMaAG

Figure 4
93

A TREASURED RELIC

by G. Reickhman
[Translated from Filatelia SSSR, June 1983, by George Shalimoff]

In the middle of May 1942 the cruising submarine K-23 under the command of
Captain Rank III Leonid Stepanovich Potapov, with division commander Captain
Rank II Magomed Imadutdinovich Gadzhiev on board, engaged in an unequal battle
with fascist ships near the coast of Norway. The final radio transmission from
on board our submarine was received in the Arctic: "Have torpedoed a transport.
Have sunk two escort vessels with deck artillery. Have significant damage.
Unable to submerge..." But this meant: "We are dying but will not surrender!"

Recently I was able to meet with a brother of the famous submariner, the
first assistant commander of the political section of the Decorated with the Red
Banner Caspian Fleet, Captain Rank I Albert Imadutdinovich Gadzhiev.

"When my brother died, I was only six years old," said the captain.
"Everyone in our house is bonded together with the memories of him. When I was
in the first grade, I already knew I would be a submariner like my brother.
After completing grade school, I entered a military school; later, after several
years, I completed the academy. I have traveled routes in the sub arctic
regions which my older brother took during the war years."

The captain recalled that his brother was one of the first recipients of
the order 'For Service to our Homeland in the Armed Forces.'

I showed Albert Imadutdinovich a postage stamp with the portrait of Magomed
Gadziev. The artist L. Golovanov used a full face portrait photograph as his
sample. Carefully holding the stamp in the palm of his hand, the captain said:

"In the war my brother had personally destroyed ten enemy ships. It seems
to me," he continued, "the artist interpreted on the stamp one of his first
battles, when Magomed was essentially the first among the world navies to use an
artillery equipped submarine. The ocean-going cruising submarine type "K" had
two 100 millimeter guns as fire power at that time.

...3 December 1941 Magomed Gadzhiev went on patrol in submarine K-3,
commanded by Lieutenant Captain K. Malofeev. A notation in the diary of Admiral
A. Glovko tells of the success and bold operation of the submarine--K-3 reported
almost 16 hours of fulfilled tasks. She went on her first patrol and was to set
mines in the region of Hamrerdest (Norway). A transport, escort vessels, and
torpedo boats were sunk. Gadzhiev was aboard the sub. He performed well.

94

After laying the mines, the submarine was in the Loppa Sea (Norway) in a
labyrinth of rocks. The Hitlerites used these places to nove convoys but had
mined the approaches. Discovering one of these blockades, Gadzhiev decided to
pass through under the mines. Soon the duty watch saw in the periscope at a
distance of 30 cable lengths (608 feet=l cable length) a large enemy transport.
There were escort vessels and two torpedo boats.

The submarine attacked. Four torpedoes hit the transport. Seeing that the
enemy ship sunk, the commander took the submarine down deep. However, the enemy
observed its whereabouts. Explosions of depth charges came nearer to where the
submarine lay. An oil slick from the combustion chamber tank, indicating a
leak, pinpointed the submarine. To stay at the bottom would be catastrophic.

'There is one way out,' said Gadzhiev, 'let's surface and use our deck
artillery to destroy the enemy torpedo boats.'

No sooner had the sub surfaced, did it commence firing. The shells hit the
stern of the escort vessel where the depth bombs were. A column of flame,
water, and black smoke rose. Where the escort vessel was originally, only
pieces were seen. Soon another escort vessel was sunk, but the single remaining
torpedo boat in the convoy took off after the sub."

Captain Rank I Albert Imadutdinovich Gadzhiev bent over the stamp and said;
"Apparently, it was this battle the artist captured in the stamp's design."

He carefully put the stamp in a small tablet where he kept another postage
stamp. It commemorates the atomic ice breaker 'Lenin's Komsomol' on which
several years ago he was the assistant commander of the political section. Two
S postage stamps in a tablet. And wherever fate may send the seaman Albert
Gadzhiev, they will always be with him.

[Ed. note: This article in Filateliya was originally translated by Dr.
Shalimoff in response to a request received by Rossica from a reference
librarian at the San Jose, California public library. It is repeated here as a
typical example of the type of material currently published in Filateliya SSSR,
a popular, general interest philatelic publication in the USSR.]

NOTICE

Peter Michalove and Dave Skipton are collaborating on a book dealing with
pre-Soviet postal censorship. It will cover the history of clandestine opening
of the mails, pre-1914 military censorship, and a catalog of all the World War I
period censor marks with associated control and routing marks. The scope of the
project has grown to dimensions far beyond anything originally imagined.

Members are requested to send any information they may have to Dr. Peter
Michalove, 307 S. McKinley, Champaign, Illinois 61821. The authors are looking
for any unusual or unreported markings or usages and need good-quality xeroxes
or photos of both sides of any material, especially censored field post,
peace-time civil censorship, court or prison mail. All contributions will be
acknowledged.

95

VARIETIES MADE-TO-ORDER BEWARE!

by V. Popov

The 1982 Soviet stamp comcemorating the October Revolution (Scott #5090) is
printed in bright colors on chalky varnish-surfaced paper. The lower text "65th
Anniversary of the Great October" is printed with metallic gold ink.

A block of four was obtained recently in which the lower right stamp shows a
missing "6" in the lower text "65th ..." (Fig. 1), creating a very unusual
variety.

An inquiry was made about the degree of rarity of this variety to an
authoritative philatelist in the USSR who replied with a warning that the entire
text in gold on the stamp can easily be removed with an eraser. As proof, a used
copy was sent with the entire text removed (Fig. 2). This was followed with a
block of four used on cover with selective portions of the gold text removed in
the upper two stamps (Fig. 3).

S................ ................-

S 5Fig.2
E.1NKoro: EANKOFOM:B In
KRTHIBP ,KTEPII i BE.lHKOrO BEIKOIH OF

Fig. 1 Fig. 3

It is very clear that there are people who are deliberately creating
varieties on modern Soviet stamps. There can be only one reason for this and that
is to deceive the collector. All serious philatelists must be cautious and
question any modern Soviet material offered as legitimate printing color errors.

96

MAIL FROM THE FINNISH COLONY IN SIBERIA

by August Leppa

Mail from parts of Russia to Finland is quite common and this is true still
when only items sent by Finns are taken into account. But there are certain
pieces of mail worth seeking, e.g., mail from Finnish soldiers, items from
Ingermanland and from the colonies in Siberia.

The prisoners in the colonies in Siberia were not very eager to write
letters. The card shown here (Fig. 1) was sent to Helsinki in August 1917 and
was written by the preacher of Helsinki village (Helsinginkyla) near Omsk. The
card is dated in Helsinki village and cancelled with a railway cancel "Novo
Nikolajevsk 196 Omsk." The sender writes as his address a street address in
Qnsk. There were only about two hundred people in Helsinginkyla and so no post
office.

| nOqTOBAR KAPT04KA ..

7-p

Fig. 1

Helsinginkyla was not the only place for Finnish prisoners. The study by
Juntunen records about one hundred villages where Finnish prisoners lived in
1897, and besides these there were a lot of people around the countryside.
There is no need to repeat that list and there is still the problem of
language. I have a card which is dated in Koskikyla (the name in Finnish) near
S Nebjansk but such a name is not mentioned by Juntunen.

97

	Cover
	Table of Contents
	Honored Members
	Officers of the society
	Representatives of the society
	Life of the society by Gordon...
	Minutes of the 1985 annual Rossica...
	Ukrainpex '85
	A forged Yanov/Janow marking on...
	Rare stamps of the RSFSR by O....
	A Russo Japanese war prisoner of...
	ANT-3 by P. Campbell
	The Russian field post offices...
	Russian fieldposts in the Baltic...
	So you want to be a postman by...
	The 8 kopek overprints on postage...
	Vremennoe update by D. Skipton
	The beginning of mail exchange...
	Catalog confusion by G. Shalim...
	Expertization of Zemstvo covers...
	Just stamping around by L....
	Railroad lines 125 and 126 by E....
	Balachovka, the Asobny Atrad issue...
	Soviet posts in the Western Ukraine,...
	A treasured relic by G. Reickhman,...
	Varieties made to order by...
	Mail from the Finnish colony in...
	The double V "blanks" of 1917 by...
	Philatelic momentos of "Reilly,...
	American supply convoys to Murmansk,...
	Soviet authentication marks by...
	Notes from collectors
	Member to member adlets
	The Rossica library by D....
	The Rossica bookshelf

MILLISECOND	CLASS.METHOD	MESSAGE
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Application State validated or built
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Navigation Object created from URI query string
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.display_item	Retrieving item or group information
0	sobekcm_page_globals.get_entire_collection_hierarchy	Retrieving hierarchy information
0	sobekcm_assistant.get_entire_collection_hierarchy
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation	Found item aggregation on local cache
0	item_aggregation_builder.get_item_aggregation	Found 'all' item aggregation in cache
0	system.web.ui.page.page_load (ufdc.page_load)
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor.on_page_load
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_style_references	Adding style references to HTML
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Reading the text from the file and echoing back to the output stream
49	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Finished reading and writing the file