I'm having troubles understanding Google's translation. On the ASOFILCA site they have some wonderful articles helping to identify forgeries on the early Venezuela issues. They helpfully provide a pulldown menu at the top of the page that lets the user choose the language of preference. On the map stamps of 1896 they list three forgery types, the third of which were created using the original (but worn) plates. At the beginning of that section they state:
Es la más difícil de detectar y la más abundante. El dibujo es igual al original,
pero menos nítido. El papel es más grueso y opaco en lugar de traslúcido como en
las originales. Perforación es igualmente 11 y no nos sirve de ayuda en este caso. El río Esequibo que desemboca en el Océano Atlántico está formado, en las originales,
por una serie de líneas paralelas delgadas, bien definidas. En las reimpresiones
se funden en una o dos rayas gruesas o se interrumpen abruptamente. Sin embargo, debido a que ni todas las estampillas auténticas son completamente
nítidas ni las reimpresiones totalmente borrosas, hay que recurrir, en caso de
duda, a las transferencias de las reimpresiones e identificarlas por exclusión.
which Google gleefully translates as:
It is the most difficult to detect and the most abundant. The drawing is equal
to the original, but less clear. The paper is thicker and opaque instead of
translucent as in the original. Drilling is also 11 and serves no help in this
case. The Essequibo River which flows into the Atlantic Ocean is formed, in the
original, by a series of thin, well-defined parallel lines. In reprints
they merge into one or two thick stripes or interrupted abruptly. However, because not all authentic stamps are completely clear nor completely
blurred reprints, should be made, in case of doubt, transfers of reprints
and identify them by exclusion.
Now I can follow most of that, except one crucial portion near the end... Am I supposed to match the following illustrations (there are eight transfers illustrated for each value) as forgeries, or are the illustrations showing characteristics of the genuine? I'm guessing the former, but only guessing.
So should I then ignore the last sentence and the 40 or so illustrations following? I'm thinking they are trying to show repeatable wear markers that should only be on the forgeries (or something that's only on the geniune) for each cliche.
