Richard A. Turton

This article by EA Smythies FRPSL, was originally published in GSM (October 1956). Tibet is coming under a great deal of scrutiny currently and material relating to the stamps of Tibet should be of much interest.

In the 1956 edition of Gibbons catalogue, Part III, the first issues of Tibet are divided into two categories, namely, A, printed in dull ink, and B, printed in shiny enamel paint. So a short note on the subject may be of interest. I will discuss it under three heads, (i) the stamps involved; (ii) how to recognize and distinguish them; (iii) a tentative explanation of the reason for the distinction, and when it arose.

First, the stamps involved. The five lower values of the 1912 issue (S.G. 1-5) and the two higher values of 1914 issue (S.G.7-8.) are found in both categories A and B. The recently discovered high value (1 sang) of 1912 (S.G. 6) is not known in shiny enamel paint, and for reasons that will appear later, I believe it does not exist in category B.

Second, how to distinguish them. The easiest way is to examine the stamps by acutely reflected light. Hold the stamp almost pointing to an electric light bulb or other source of illumination. If in category A, the appearance remains flat and dull, if in category B, the stamp glitters and glows, in extreme cases it looks almost embossed, the reason being, of course, that the dull ink does not reflect the light, while the enamel paint does.

A supplementary (but not so reliable) test is the general appearance of the stamp. The enamel paint was a poor material for printing stamps, and usually resulted in a rather messy and blotchy print, obliterating the finer details of the design. Early prints of both issues in dull ink are much clearer and sharper; however during the course of nearly twenty years of use, the clichés, particularly of the smaller type of 1912, became worn, damaged, and dirty so that later printings of these itamps are also messy. But then they never glitter.

Third, why and when the distinction arose? The enamel paint is so obviously an unsatisfactory medium for stamp printing, that it could scarcely have been adopted voluntarily, and the most obvious explanation is that at some time when there was a demand for more stamps to be printed the supply of dull ink ran out, and faute de mieux the authorities used some enamel paint which happened to be available. Colonel Bailey has noted:- “From what I know of things in Lhasa, I should say the postmaster went into the bazaar and bought what he could–there would not be much choice!”

Colonel Bailey also is in a position to give evidence when the enamel paint was used. On his visit to Lhasa in August 1924, he inspected the printing office and saw the stamps actually being printed. At that time they were using English (or at any rate foreign) enamel paint out of tins with flamboyant labels. On the other hand, the stock of sheets he acquired at the same time, of 1912 and 1914 types, were mostly printed in dull ink and not shiny enamel, so it is reasonable to assume that the enamel paint had only recently come into use in the printing office and not yet gone into circulation to any appreciable extent.

Corroborating this to some extent is the fact that I have a number of dated covers with shiny enamel stamps, the dates running from 1925 to 1932. (From 1933, of course, the next issue of stamm came in.) On the other hand, stocks of dull ink stamps were apparently still available at a very late date, as I received mint specimens of all values just before the Red invasion. So were the sets of 1912 stamps given away as presents by the Tibet Trade Mission to U.S.A. in 1948. It is, I think, extremely probable that there was a reversion to the dull ink printings before the end, and that the printing with shiny enamel paint was an emergency measure which did not last very long. This is further supported by a reference to the 4 and 8 trangka stamps of 1914, in which specialists distinguish between:- (a) early printings in dull ink but deep rich colours (these are rare); (b) emergency printing in shiny enamel and still with deep rich colours (these are very rare); (c) later printings in dull ink with rather faded or washy colours (these are not so rare).

It is interesting to record that when Colonel Bailey bought his sheets (one of each value) of 1912 issue, the set of five sheets cost him exactly sixpence! (Now catalogued over £29.)

I mentioned earlier that there are reasons to think that 1 sang (= 6 2/3 trangka) stamp of 1912 (S.G. 6) does not exist in category B, i.e. shiny. Very little is known of this stamp, as only two or three used specimens have at present been found. It was obviously very little in use, in fact when the 4 and 8 transka of 1914 (S.G. 7 and 8) came in, it became superfluous. So it would be most unlikely that printings of it were made in 1924.

Gibbons catalogue prices mint stamps of category B at approximately twice the value of mint category A. I doubt if even this differentiation does full justice to the comparative rarity of mint shiny enamel stamps of 1912 type. I believe it would be approximately correct to say that only about six or seven complete mint sheets of this type are known at present printed in shiny enamel paint, compared to ten times that number printed in dull ink. In the 1914 type also, the shiny stamps (as I have indicated above) are much rarer
than the dull stamps.