Where did these ones come from?

Some Lapwings fly out of the wallpaper

I am greatly indebted to member Ton Plug for bringing these small mysteries to my attention as I had never seen them before. And after a few hours of internet excavation, whilst better informed, I am still a little uncertain about them.  

The accompanying images show two Guyana stamps – a pair of a $6 Northern Lapwing (Vanellus Vanellus) (a and b), and then a further pair of the same stamps surcharged and overprinted $20 (c and d). But when were they issued? Which is a pretty a good question, because I am not sure.

Fig. a – Smaller $6 (square) version
Fig. b – Smaller $6 version found on cover 2015
Fig. c – Surcharged – hand-stamped version (left)
Fig. d – Surcharged printed version

You’ll probably recognise the design. Guyana produced two mini-sheets entitled “Birds of the World” for “Philakorea 94” and issued them on 16th August 1994. The sheets, each with twelve designs, depicted a variety of species but only two of which could actually be found in Guyana. Needless to say, the Northern Lapwing was not one of the native birds and it is amazing that they didn’t use the local sub-species of the Southern Lapwing (Vanellus c. cayennensis). The stamps on both sheets included the event logo and had a vertical rectangular format, each with the value of $35.

2 thoughts on “Where did these ones come from?”

  1. Colin,

    And so the prosecution rests, m’lud!

    And your comment does not surprise me in the least, as I have long been disenchanted with SG and their Commonwealth-GB-centric publication policy.

    I think you are lucky to have a copy of the South America (Part 20) edition at all, for as well as being completely out of print, it is hard to come across an affordable one as well. There used to be a “Belize, Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago” edition, but even that is no longer current. Neighbouring Surinam and Venezuela would be in the SA edition so bizarrely Guyana can now seemingly only be found in the hugely expensive SOTW set, which is poor value for money. Thank goodness for Michel and Scott!


Leave a Reply