More about the authenticity of KSC #5 (Sc #11) on 1948 postcard

(Editor: a recent question by Chen Yi-Fu led to quite a few answers being given in the comments section. The original article/question can be found here.) This small article is trying to answer some comments about the authenticity of KSC #5 (Sc #11) Secondary anniversary of the labour law.

Following are several images from different website:

• Fig. 1 is the image of the fake postcard sold on eBay. USD$510.00
• Fig. 2 is the image of another KSC#5 stamp sold on eBay by the same seller. USD$894.00
• Fig. 3 is another image from another eBay seller. Unsold.

From Fig. 3 we can tell the differences between original and reprint stamps. The most obvious difference is: in the original stamp, there is a thin horizontal line below the thickest line which runs across “6.24”. But in the reprinted stamp, there is no such line. So to tell if the stamp is an original issue or a reprint, just check if there is such a line or not.

Then let’s go back to Fig. 1 & 2. These two stamps are supposedly originals. But are they genuine? Maeda’s criteria only help to distinguish original vs. reprint; but that may not be helpful to certify their authenticity. Since there are many printing varieties in DPRK stamps of this period, I think we cannot judge them by the line thickness of the frame only. They might be from different printings.

I’m not the winner of the above 2 stamps, so I didn’t possess the real items, but I have another stamp from the same seller, which I won for around USD$20. And it was forged too. I cannot tell clearly why I think that stamp is a forgery but I just feel something is wrong, especially when comparing it with my other stamp (Fig.4). I can tell the printing method of the forged stamp is different from the genuine stamp. But I’m not specialized in printing techniques and may need other people’s help. Was it printed with a color jet printer?

Anyway, back to Fig. 3, I think the left stamp is a “genuine” original and the other 2 stamps are genuine reprints. But the left one is cut from proof. (But proof and stamps were not printed at the same time, so can it be called genuine?)