Stamps of Mongolia Since 1945 (1956)

The next set of seven (Nos. 9-15) each have the figures “25” or “XXV” in the designs, so that they evidently commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of some event or other. No particular single theme seems to emerge from the designs so that we must assume that it is some event so profound and obvious to the Mongols as not to need further particularization. The one event fulfilling this condition is independence, Outer Mongolia declared itself independent in July, 1921, so that these stamps, if they appeared on schedule, would have been issued in 1946. As with the definitive set, some values were first observed in the West in May, 1948, and this is important.

Although Outer Mongolia became independent in 1921 there was an interregnum of three years before the state structure prevailing today was set up. From 1921 until his death in July, 1924, the country was ruled by the Living Buddha of Urga (now Ulan-Bator). The Mongolian People’s Republic was proclaimed in August, 1924, and a Constitution adopted in November of that year. I suspect that the founding of the People’s Republic might perhaps overshadow even the assumption of independence in the official view, but the twenty-fifth anniversary of an event taking place in 1924 would bring us to 1949 and, as mentioned, some of the stamps had already percolated to the West in 1948.

This set, then, is assumed to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Outer Mongolia’s independence and to have been issued in 1946. It contains three of the elements which illuminate our ignorance of Mongolian affairs: unknown people, unknown buildings, and the apparent duplication of values. Observe that there are two 60 mung values, the first one of which shows a magnificent and quite unknown facade of one of the structures with which Mongolia is apparently dotted. The other 60 mung and the 30 mung have helpful captions reading “Choibalsan”. Marshal Kharloin Choibalsan was Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Mongolian People’s Republic and is usually regarded as the Mongol Stalin. His power was perhaps not quite as absolute as his Soviet counterpart but he was apparently subjected to the same semi-deification which surrounded Stalin.

The 2 t. value shows another portrait and the 50 mung two others. The left-hand portrait on the 50 mung is evidently the same as that on the 2 t. and the right-hand portrait may even be the same as the left-hand one. In fact, we are probably observing the same gentleman three times! But it seems to me very improbable that the picture is of a “religious dignitary”, as has been suggested (ref. K). The “religious” aspect undoubtedly arises from the headgear and it seems quite possible to me that the hats are a Mongol version of the Russian fur cap, so that the three gentlemen, who are one, may simply be Choibalsan at an early age and in national attire.

The two high-value stamps are interesting in being very similar to the Russian medals types. The 80 mung bears the date 1945 so that this could be a Victory medal. Outer Mongolia assisted the Russians a great deal during the War against the Germans and also declared war on Japan on August 10th, 1945. The medal on the 1 t. stamp is clearly marked “XXV”, which suggests an Order for the Anniversary of Independence.

The third set described here (Nos. 16-28) consists of thirteen values devoted to commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of independence, which would make their date of issue 1951. Most of them are inscribed “XXX” and this identifies them rather well. The 5 mung, 10 mung and 1 t. values have been placed with this set because of certain resemblances to the remainder. The border patterns of the 10 mung are identical, for example, with those on the values depicting buildings. The 1 t. is more difficult perhaps. The border suggests a similarity to No. 15 of the preceding set issued in 1946. I notice, however, that one of the flags shown in the design is that of Communist China. This flag was not instituted until the foundation of the Chinese People’s Republic in 1949, which seems to rule it out for 1946. Some of the other flags, also, were not current in 1946. This beflagged stamp also fills a convenient gap in the sequence of values, there being no 1 t. otherwise.

Several points of interest emerge with this set. Some of the buildings are identifiable at last. The U.S.S.R. in 1951 also commemorated friendship with Mongolia with a set of three (S.G. 1684-6) and the designs are duplicated in the Mongolian set. The 25 kop. and 25 mung values show the Choibalsan University, and the 40 kop. and 40 mung the State Theatre, both in Ulan-bator. The 20 and 30 mung (and 1 ruble) have the Mongol flag and State Arms; these Arms are interesting in containing at the foot the inscription “Mongolian People’s Republic” in the obsolete script. The same arms, when shown in the small stamps of 1954 (Nos. 41 and 42), have this script replaced by the Mongol letters representmg B.N.M.A.U. and these initials occur throughout most of the thirtieth anniversary set at present under review. They stand for Bughut Nairamdukho Monggol Arat Ulus, translated literally as “all in agreement Mongol People’s Country.” This odd discrepancy of the old inscription may perhaps have a legal basis. The Arms of the Republic are defined in Article 92 of the Constitution of June 30th, 1940, and it may be that in 1951 the Constitution had not been amended to incorporate the revised spelling, although this had been done by 1954. In the other values, the 50 mung shows a building which, with a little imagination, can he looked upon as the same one shown in the 10 mung of 1932 (S.G. 46). i.e. Government Building, Ulan-bator.

The 2 t. value shows Sukhe-bator, the national hero reckoned as the Mongol Lenin, just as Choibalsanw as considered the Mongol Stalin. Sukhe-bator had founded a revolutionary party in Mongolia in 1920 and was the leader of the forces which co-operated with Soviet troops in 1931 to drive out the White Russians and proclaim Mongolia independent. This extraordinary man was made War Minister in the first independent government and died only two years later, in 1923, at the early age of 30. His unsmiling features are already well known from the 40 mung of the 1932 pictorial set, where he unaccountably appears as “Syke” instead of “Sukhe” Bator.

The Vevers covers bore a stamp which I have placed in the 30th anniversary series. This is a very handsome multicoloured 3 t. (No. 28) showing a portrait of Lenm, the first foreigner ever depicted on a Mongolian stamp. It contains no identifying inscription, unfortunately, nor even any dates which might help to confirm that it is in fact part of this set.

For the next set (Nos. 29-40) we have, for the first time, some documentary evidence of the date of issue and the place of production. The Czech  magazine Filatelie in its issue for April, 1954 (ref. C), and the East German in ~une,i gS4 (ref. E). both report a set of twelve coinmemora- dress’) ting the first anniversary of the death of Marshal Choibalsan. The stamps are said to have been issued at the end of 1953 and to have been printed by the State Printing Works in Moscow. The odd thing about this set is that it is composed of only six designs: each design appears twice in different colours and different values. Since Choibalsan died (in Moscow) early in 1952 it occurred to me that six values could have been issued in 1953 and the other six in  altered colours and values early in 1954, commemorating the second anniversary in the latter case. But there is no evidence for this, and we must accept for the time being an extraordinary set containing no fewer
than three 20 mung values.

The stamps themselves show various portraits of the Marshal; an unfamiliar one is Nos. 29 and 31, which presumably depict him as a young man in national dress. The double busts on the two top values are of Choibalsan and Sukhe-bator, and No. 40 is noteworthy as being the highest value – 5 t. – in the post-1945 sets.

Two final stamps have recently turned up and, as always, present intriguing features. They are two small stamps (Nos. 41 and 42) showing the Arms of the Republic, this time with amended inscription B.N.M.A.U., and dated 1945. The odd thing is that the two values seen, 30 and 60 mung, are so alike that they have invariably been taken for the same stamp by people who have seen them. The colours are identical carmine-reds and the values; are shown in small figures which are easily overlooked. They are also
lithographed, a process which has not been used for Mongolia since 1926. The fact that they were not on sale in September, 1954, when the Vevers covers were compounded, suggests that they must have appeared late in that year. I have seen the 30 mung in a lighter shade.

This concludes my attempt at describing the issues of Outer Mongolia which have appeared since 1945. I wish to acknowledge, with grateful thanks, the help given by A. Cronin, B. Drennan, H. Kahle, G. S. Russell, and especially T. Klewitz. I now present a checklist and notes on previous press reports; I might add that, to my knowledge, the following stamps have not before been described in the Press: Nos. I, 7, 8, 16, 25, 41 and 42.

References
A. Stamps (NewlYork), vol. 63 (22.5.48), pp. 299-300.

B. Neue Sammlerschau (Wien-Leoben), 1.7.48, pp. 205-206.

C. Filatelia (Prague), April, 1954, p. 121.

D. Stamp Collecting, 6.8.54, p. 667-quoting Le Timbre

E. Sammler-Express, vol. 8 (15.6.54), pp. 187-188.

F. Ibid., vol. 9 (1.3.55), pp. 65 and 73: A possible confusion here has given rise to a stamp which may not exist: the Arm and flag design of the 30th Anniversary series is reported as appearing in 20 and 60 mung values. I have seen only 20 and 30 mung (Nos. 20 and 22) and have no evidence for a 60 mung value. A 25 mung showing Ulan-bator University is also described, but not illustrated, and the impression given in the following number (ref. G) that it is part of the set for the 25th Independence Anniversary. I consider this an error for the 30th Anniversary and the stamp to be No. 21.

G. Ibid., vol. 9 (15.3.55), p. 91.

H. Ibid., vol. 9 (15.6.55), pp. 191 and 193.

I. Stamp Collecting, 25.3.55, p. 59: based on ref. F. This repeats the original and with it what appear to me to be the errors.

J. Ibid., 8.4.55, p. 107 : based on ref. G. This puts No. 2 in the 25th Anniversary series and describes it as Marshal Choibalsan as a young man; it appears to me to depict a Mongol woman.

K. Ibid., 8.7.55, p, 531 : based on ref. H. The original described and illustrated Nos. 4, 15 and 27, pointing out (correctly) that No. 15 was part of the 25th Anniversary series and that it had no information about the
other two stamps. The reprinted version inadvertently lumps all three in the 25th Anniversary series. It also describes No. 15 as “apparently a religious dignitary”: I consider this to be Choibalsan. The “possible early portrait of Choibalsan on No. 27, also, I think is unmistakably Sukhe-bator.

L. Ibid., 7.10.55, p. 119 and 14.10.55, p. 145. This was my listing of the additional stamps which had come to light on the Vevers covers.

M. Scott’s Monthly Journal, vol. 36 (Dec., 1955), pp. 188-189 ; reprinted in Mekeel’s Weekly Stamp News, vol. 86 (13;1.56), pp. 9 and 12. As my article was being written there appeared in America the work of
another student, Mr. G. S. Russell, on the same theme. Mr. Russell describes thirty-nine stamps arranged into four sets – the two Independence series, the Choibalsan Mourning issue and a “pictorial series of 1948”.
This latter I have dated 1945-46, as explained above. Since Mr. Russell has not had the opportunity of studying the Sammler-Express accounts, his list appears to contain one stamp which does not exist and three duplications, making an effective total of thirty-five stamps, as against forty-two described above. The “ghost” is the 60 m. Arms and flag (see ref. F); the duplicates are:

(No. 2) 10m. Mongol woman, also called “Choibalsan as young man” in 25th Anniversary set;

(No. (9) 30 m, Choibalsan at the age of four, also called Boy (head and shoulders) in the “1948” set;

(No. 27 ) 2 t. Sukhe-bator, also called Soldier with ammunition pouches in the 25th Anniversary set.

Mr. Russell also includes in the 25th Anniversary set two stamps which I consider should be placed elsewhere. These are the 20 m. Camel caravan (No. 4), part of the 1945-46 definitives, and the 20 m. Arms and flag (No. 20), part of the 30th Anniversary set. Lastly, there are two minor errors of colour description: in the Choibalsan Mourning issue Mr. Russell describes the 15 m. Agricultural worker (No. 30) as brown instead of green and the 15 m. National costume (No. 29) as green instead of blue.