Japan Koban stamp value: Old, UPU and New issues

Start with the Koban family, not a crest alone

This guide covers Old Koban, UPU Koban and New Koban using the International Society for Japanese Philately classification. Its introduction places the family between 1876 and 1892 and treats the preceding Cherry Blossom stamps as a separate group.[1] Start by comparing the whole design and denomination with the reference, rather than choosing a price because an album page says Japan.

A chrysanthemum crest is not enough to identify a Koban. ISJP discusses that emblem on both Cherry Blossom and Koban stamps.[1] Nor does a crest establish authenticity. Keep later stamps described as Chrysanthemum outside this price comparison until their own issue is identified. A seller's short design description and a collector's family name answer different questions.

If Japan itself is uncertain, use the foreign stamp identification method first. Copy visible lettering and the printed denomination without completing obscured characters. Keep a front image with the album attribution, but label that attribution as unverified. Do not assign a specialist variety simply to fill an empty space in an album.

Separate Old, UPU and New before looking up a price

ISJP calls the 1876-1879 issues Old Koban, the three 1883 stamps UPU Koban, and the 1888-1892 issues New Koban.[1] Those periods are issue-group labels. They are not dates that you must find in a cancellation on every example. An indistinct postmark should not force a stamp into the earliest or latest group.

Use the three-way route below as an index to the references, not a complete technical identification key. Read the denomination, compare the design, then verify the catalog entry. The listed stock examples give concrete starting points for that comparison. They do not list every denomination or establish that every similar-looking stamp belongs to the same entry.

The UPU group has a specific reason for its colours. ISJP links green, red and blue to international printed matter, postcard and letter rate categories respectively.[1] That historical explanation does not make colour alone a safe identification. A reproduction, an unclear photograph or a different denomination still needs the rest of the description.

The source scan below shows a red 50 sen design with an oval frame and 50 SEN at its foot.[15] It is not one of the eight priced stock items. Compare the printed unit as well as the numerals, but do not use this scan to settle an Old versus New attribution. The file description supplies a year that does not independently date the physical stamp.

Resolve the broader New Koban label in galleries

Not every reference puts the boundary in the same place. Japanese Philately labels its Old gallery 1876-79 and its New gallery 1883-92.[4][5] Its New heading therefore includes the period that ISJP separates as UPU Koban. An 1883 stamp can appear under a broader New heading without becoming an 1888 issue.

Write down which naming convention your source uses. For this guide, an 1883 1 sen, 2 sen or 5 sen comparison stays in the UPU group. If your album uses New for the broader period, retain that wording in a note and add the narrower subgroup. Do not change the catalog number merely to make two headings agree.[1][5]

Schuyler Rumsey independently describes an 1883 UPU 1 sen green with a 2 sen carmine on a cover. It also describes an 1888 New Koban 4 sen olive bister on another cover.[12] These descriptions corroborate the distinction. They do not price loose examples, and a cover carrying two stamps is not a two-stamp retail packet.

Keep the denomination, catalog system and stock ID separate

The price table uses Scott references as reported for the Bwdavis stock. A number without its catalog name is incomplete. On the ISJP forgery page, the UPU 2 sen has Scott 73 beside Sakura 79.[11] These are different catalog references to the described issue, not two denominations or two values for the stamp.

Keep the printed unit too. The New Koban Scott 75 example is 5 rin, whereas the UPU Scott 74 example is 5 sen.[2] Copying only the numeral 5 would discard part of the identification. Preserve the dealer's wording in your record and use the catalog number workflow when an old album number has no named system.

A stock ID identifies a seller's particular listing, not a catalog variety. R17S254 belongs beside the Scott 73 comparison so you can find the exact advertised item again.[2] Keep catalog edition, issue attribution and seller stock ID in separate fields. If a listing disagrees with your reference about the denomination, stop the price comparison until you resolve the conflict.

Check a candidate Koban after the basic identification

Once you have a likely issue group and denomination, use a sharp photo for a second identification pass. Include all edges and the entire design. If the stamp remains on an envelope, preserve an image of the whole item before taking a close-up. Leave any attached stamp in place rather than removing it for a cleaner scan.

Compare the suggested identity with the three-way route and the catalog entry. A result that says only Japan or Chrysanthemum has not yet separated the relevant families. Save the unresolved question, such as UPU versus a broader New album heading, instead of treating a visual suggestion as a final catalog attribution.

Stamp Value Identifier & Scan offers photo-based identification and estimated collector context. It is a research starting point, not official authentication, certification, grading or appraisal. For Koban material, a likely design match does not settle whether the stamp or cancellation is genuine, and a front photo does not document the entire condition of the object.

Compare eight exact used-single asks dated October 24, 2026

Bwdavis displayed the eight stock rows below on October 24, 2026. Each concerns one seller-described used stamp, without an independently verified grade or authenticity opinion.[2] The seller's terms explicitly state US funds.[6] USD here is the asking currency, not a conversion from the historical denomination printed on the stamp.

These priced rows were not marked sold in the recorded observation. Orders are by email, so the display does not confirm physical availability, a reservation or a completed transaction.[2][6] Ask the seller to confirm the exact stock ID and description before relying on a row. The observation date records when the offer was read, not when a stamp changed hands.

Shipping is separate. Tax treatment is not stated in the read terms, so these are not delivered totals. The seller also says prices are a guide and some derive from catalog calculations.[6] Use each row as a traceable retail comparison. Do not combine the lowest and highest asks into a universal Koban value range or a prediction of what a dealer will pay you.

Do not merge used, damaged and on-paper copies

The same dealer page illustrates why a catalog match is not a condition match. Its Scott 73 stock R17S254 is described as used. Separate Scott 73 rows carry a damaged description or an on-paper description.[2] Those are distinct stock items. Their existence does not turn a basic used description into a guarantee that the stamp is sound.

Record what you can inspect on your own copy. Note tears, missing teeth, creases, stains and whether the reverse is accessible. Use the condition grading guide to keep observations separate from a formal grade. If an album attachment conceals the back, record that limitation rather than assuming that no faults are present.

No matched-condition study here establishes a fixed discount for damage or a premium for a light cancellation. Do not apply a percentage to every Koban because two listings differ. An on-paper stamp is also a different sale unit from a loose single. Leave it attached while you record the visible markings and decide whether specialist advice is needed.

Read the forgery evidence without inventing a quick test

ISJP documents a particular group of crude UPU and New Koban imitations with printed Tokio cancellations. Its account says those illustrated imitations lack the imitation markings discussed elsewhere in the study.[11] Absence of such a marking therefore does not prove authenticity. This is a warning about the documented objects, not a claim that every Tokio cancellation is false.

The same page includes a statement about known New Koban fakes explicitly dated October 24, 2020.[11] That historical statement is not a current exhaustive census. It cannot establish that every other denomination is safe today. If authenticity changes a purchase decision, send the actual candidate and its evidence to a specialist rather than selecting one visible feature as proof.

Two UPU bullets on that page print 1893. This guide uses 1883 because ISJP's introduction gives that year and Rumsey independently describes the UPU stamps as 1883.[1][11][12] Preserve a note of the conflict when following those references. Do not shift the issue into a different decade or alter a catalog attribution to accommodate the inconsistent bullets.

Keep covers and other formats outside the loose-single table

Rumsey's cover descriptions help identify named Koban issues, but their sale units include the envelope and postal context.[12] They are not ordinary loose-stamp comparisons. A photograph of one stamp on a cover does not make the complete cover equivalent to a used single. Retain the address, accompanying stamps and postal markings in your record.

Do not detach a Koban from an envelope to make it resemble a row in this guide. Likewise, keep a block, pair, specimen or other specially described item outside the eight-single comparison until its format is resolved. This guide supplies no qualified price for those objects, no mint premium and no complete-set total.

For a selling decision, the old stamp value workflow explains why asking prices and realized sales must stay separate. First identify the exact Koban and condition. Then seek a comparable transaction for that same object type. An auction estimate, a sold dealer row and an available retail ask do not become interchangeable because all mention Japan.

Save a Koban record that another collector can check

Keep one record per physical object, with the issue group, denomination and unit, named catalog reference, format, condition observations and photographs. Preserve an inherited label as a separate attribution. If two references group the stamp differently, record the narrower UPU label beside the broader New heading rather than silently discarding either source.

For a price comparison, add the seller, exact stock ID, USD ask and October 24, 2026 observation date. Label the evidence as an advertised retail ask and leave any sale-result field blank.[2][6] Record shipping separately and tax as unstated. A later buyer can then distinguish the observed listing from your own estimate or an unavailable offer.

Your next step should answer the missing fact. If the denomination is hidden, seek a clearer image. If the catalog system is unknown, find its key. If authenticity is in doubt, ask for specialist examination. The eight offers establish what one dealer displayed on one date. They do not establish demand for every Koban or a guaranteed selling price.

Frequently asked questions