Page 250 - The Postal Agencies in Eastern Arabia

[,
Bf
■
%
■t
Printed Sold &
Sheets of 100 Sheets of 100
5 fils/5NP(Cyl.l A) 900 (90,000stamps) 900 (90,OOOstamps) I(r.
15 fils/15NP(Cyl.l A) 1,500(150,OOOstamps) 930 (93,OOOstamps)
20 fils/20NP(Cyl.l A) 900 (90,OOOstamps) 900 (90,OOOstamps) &
V
30 fils/30NP(Cyl.l A) 700 (70,OOOstamps) 450 (45,OOOstamps)
Vi
40 fils/40NP(Cyl.l A) 1,800( 180,OOOstamps) 1,010( 101,OOOstamps) 3
50 fils/50NP(Cyl.l A) 500 (50,OOOstamps) 80 (8,OOOstamps) &
75 fils/75NP(Cyl.l A) 500 (50,OOOstamps) 80 (8,OOOstamps) %
$
S
Sheets of 50 Sheets of 50 8
100 flls/R 1 (Plate 1) 400 (20,OOOstamps) 350 (17,500stamps)
200 fils/Rs2(Plates 1,1 A) 400 (20,OOOstamps) 160 (8,OOOstamps) I
500 fils/Rs5(Plate 1) 500 (25,OOOstamps) 90 (4,500stamps) p
1 Dinar/RslO(Plate 2A) 600 (30,OOOstamps) 60 (3,OOOstamps)
Aerogramme (30,000) - (30,000)
(The Crown Agents Bulletin in March 1968 gave completely different - r.r
and incorrect — details of quantities sold)

Two major errors were found in the Post Office at Abu Dhabi. The >-
first was a complete sheet of the 20 Fils/20NP with an inverted surcharge &
which lies slightly to the right, so that the inverted English “20” falls ;
in the right-hand sheet margin and across the perforation gutters. This Es
error is consequently seen to best advantage in horizontal pairs and, as 1
14 copies were kept by the original finder and four copies postally used, 'if
there remain only the equivalent of 41 pairs available to collectors. £
■i?
The other major error was on the 30 Fils/30NP, five sheets having
been found on which the Arabic surcharge on No. 68 (Row 7/8) reads
“20” instead of “30”. This error in typesetting was, inTact, discovered
at the beginning of the printing run and was immediately corrected.
The incorrectly surcharged sheets, together with other spoiled sheets
(all of which had to be accounted for), were despatched to the G.P.O.
in London for destruction. Five sheets were apparently overlooked and
were included with the corrected supply sent to the Post Office in Abu
Dhabi. With only five examples this is a really rare S.G. Part I error.

247