The fire and the subsequent recovery from water damage have provided further philatelic
interest. Angeloglous applied a backstamp, comprising the letters ‘ela’, in red
or violet to stamps in his stock. In the Random Notes number 19 (Spring 1982) it
was reported that a slightly larger size of ‘ela’ existed and that because this had
been found on forgeries, it was itself a forgery and was not applied by Angeloglous.
I am not convinced. In my collection all of the larger variety are on genuine stamps
and I have one example of the original smaller size on a forgery! I would suggest
that Angeloglous either used two of these handstamps or, more likely, the larger
one was a replacement for a damaged or worn-out smaller one. I had originally thought
that the larger one was a replacement for the original that was destroyed in the
fire, a very plausible explanation. A recent acquisition destroyed this argument.
The stamp is used and on the back shows a very weak and slightly fuzzy ‘ela’ mark
in red of the larger size. I suggest that this is a result of the backstamp being
applied to the gummed side of a mint stamp that became part of the water-damaged
stock and subsequently cancelled; the gum is thin enough to allow ink to bleed through
to the paper. In this case the mark would have been applied by Angeloglous and is
genuine; I cannot think of a reason why anyone would go to these lengths to provide
a used stamp that is probably worth less than the original mint one! The reason
why the larger ‘ela’ is more frequently found on forgeries can be explained quite
simply. The original stock came from the Hejaz at the time of issue and would have
received the original, smaller, backstamp. Later stock would have come from other
sources and could have included forgeries that, at that time, had not been identified
and in any case are extremely well produced. Some are of a standard that could easily
have fooled Angeloglous. For the record, both types of Angeloglous’ handstamps can
also be found in violet.
