Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Hi Micky, I don't have a #38 either

Yes your #1 is a beaut, the full cancel no less.. I have a few of them but they are all on single stamps, so I don't have the entire cancel..

As regards to the #2, I won this at Auction last night along with another BN M3 (1003) at least I think that's what it is, it may be 1103 but I'll have to have mcgooley look at it as her detective skills are famous as far as I am concerned..

Here is my new #2 which gives me 4 different types..




Hey Micky, I knew a bloke from Atherton, I first met him in Chillagoe back in '78 when we were Drilling there.. He ended up a Driller and I lost contact with him.. His name was Dave Curry, he is ex Navy and he would be about 60 now, don't suppose you have banged into him up there !!

Anyway Cheers Mate
Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi again Bunge, your 2 does look similar maybe we have something new and we both got it from the States. we will just have to wait to hear from mcgooley.
Your friend I have checked the phone book with no luck sorry, I have never met him.

Cheers from NQ
Micky

Firstly, apologies to everyone.


Auzzie Learner, your first image is from Nhill's second duplex of 1211, which was issued about the same time as the stamp it's on.

Your strip of 1 pennys (with the nice shades) includes three Geelongs; Drysdale's 17 duplex numeral; a nice recut of Chewton's 145; Clune's second duplex numeral; and Warracknabeal's duplex numeral of 355.

Your last scan of the 2d purples - from left to right is 51 from Horsham's fourth duplex (Horsham's duplexes had side-bars - Kilmore (54) didn't); Somerville's 1787; Brighton (19) second duplex; Geelong; Ballarat East second duplex (159); Lorne's duplex (838); and I'd appreciate larger scans of the last two, they both look upside down.

Now to Micky.

Firstly, your "22" on the 2d purple is actually 622 of Bridgewater-on-Loddon. And your "38?" is type 3A, so you have only eight numerals it could be between 382-389, which narrows the field down a lot. All post offices were open when this stamp was first issued, if that's any help.

Both your '2' and Bunge's example are from Geelong's first duplex, issued in November 1861, and used through until the end of 1870. Interestingly, the right-hand (outside) side-bars on the numeral wore down fairly quickly which gives it that characteristic look of having two bars on the left and one on the right. (My bet is on a vigorous right-handed clerk, to do that sort of damage.)

Regards

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks for your input mcgooley, that makes sense about the worn r/h side bars.. So our cancels were done when the canceller was worn !! So my brain suggests to me to be on the look out for cancels done earlier as the side bars would be still intact and one could possibly attain several cancels which would all be different as the canceller slowly wore down.. Something else to be alert about !!

Thanks again Mcgooley, now I'm off to ebay to have a look around for some earlier cancels.. That has the makings of a collection within a collection Ah !!!

Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Add your votes on what this cancel is worth folks -

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29762

_________________
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

Very nice I like to own the pair if it was $1 or $5870

I better try win Lotto Teusday.

Micky

Auzzie Learner, your first image is from Nhill's second duplex of 1211, which was issued about the same time as the stamp it's on.

Your strip of 1 pennys (with the nice shades) includes three Geelongs; Drysdale's 17 duplex numeral; a nice recut of Chewton's 145; Clune's second duplex numeral; and Warracknabeal's duplex numeral of 355.

Your last scan of the 2d purples - from left to right is 51 from Horsham's fourth duplex (Horsham's duplexes had side-bars - Kilmore (54) didn't); Somerville's 1787; Brighton (19) second duplex; Geelong; Ballarat East second duplex (159); Lorne's duplex (838); and I'd appreciate larger scans of the last two, they both look upside down.[/quote]


Thats fantastic mcgooley and I really don't think you need to apologies.
I Think I should apologies for loading this thread up with these random numeral postal cancels. These cancels are so exciting. Most times I'v been over looking the stamp itself because I'v been so absorbed by the postal marks

I will pop up the two scans shortly

Sorry, Auzzie Learner, I missed your MD numeral

I'm very much inclined to go with Leitchville (1586), but - in truth - it is a very poor strike and could be one of several. Personally, I would leave this in the 1500's with a question-mark. Most (but not all) of the possibilities are in the 4R range.

Of your 2d purples, the one on the right is a really poor copy of Devenish's 998. The strike on the left is the first issue of 1624, for Ascot Vale (West).

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Hi mcgooley, I have a few more here..
1st #2, I now have 5 different #2s, could you tell me about this one please..

2nd 729 ? Only other # it could be to me is 329, but I cannot see any of the bottom part of a 3..

3rd 75? (750) or (756) perhaps, I have blown it up, but it doesn't help me ..




Thanks again for your help
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Pete, your '2' is the numeral from Geelong's 2nd duplex which came into use during April-May 1868, and only saw very occasional use for about 10 years. Not all that common.

Your middle stamp is a nice example of Hesse's RR-rated 729. (Hesse was more of a location than a village - there was church, a school, and a post office until 1899 when it was downgraded to an R.O...resurrected twice as a P.O. before closing for good in 1966.)

Judging by the '5' on your last strike, I'm inclined to think this is Glenmaggie's 756. The bottom of the '5' juts out a bit too much for my liking to be 750. But I would put a question mark against it until you come across other examples.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks again for your help mcgooley, have a couple of questions about the ratings with these stamps..

1st # 55 - Seller gave it a 1R rating, but no rating in the list I am following..
2nd # 289 - Seller gave it a 2R rating, said it was 3rd Duplex, is it type 2CR ?
3rd # 192 - Seller didn't rate this one but according to the list it has a 1R rating, is that so ?
4th # 433 - Seller gave it a 1R rating, said it was 1st Duplex, is this the one which is rated ?



Mind you I only paid $6.67 + 70c postage, so if they are unrated it matters not, as they are nice additions to my very small collection thus far..

Thanks again mcgooley, Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Pete, your '55' is Kingower which has an 'R' rating. Please bear in mind that ratings are always going to be rather fluid, particularly as more people become interested in this field and know what to look for

The post office only ever had the one BN issue, and it has been met with on commonwealth issues - but for most of its life the P.O. was not exactly busy.

The '289' is from Hotham/North Melbourne's 3rd duplex. The tell-tale signs are the height of the numerals, the configuration of the '9', and the tail on the '2'. BUT, as with all duplexes, the rating is meaningless unless it is a full duplex - not the case here, but you have a very handy reference for the time you do come across the recut. (Hint, on the 2C and the recut [side-bars removed] the much numerals are thicker, and the '8' is very definitely pear-shaped - bit like a sheila who's gone to seed )

192 - Campbell's Creek, south of Castlemaine, is R-rated. You've almost got two strikes on the same stamp; this lady must originally have had a companion in her travels.

Your Dimboola duplex is the R-rated, rarely seen, one - and you have near enough to the full duplex. (My only issue [sorry to be a party-pooper] is that this seems to have been patched together, but even that's not really a big deal because the date is well within the usage period.)

All in all, quality additions to your collection. Well done

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks mcgooley you made my day I knew I had seen another 289 cancel among the chaos which is my "busy table" , but actually found it in my album..
I thought I would post it, but with the other as comparison and your above description I am 110% sure I have another 2R stamp.. In all honesty I have had the other for some time now and never posted it to ask if it was a rated stamp because it looks like the kind of cancel that isn't , if you know what I mean




Thanks again mcgooley
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Good day to everyone

Below are some more of my BN collection, I think i have showed a couple already, I am just curious about rariety and if i'm lucky enough to have something worth a couple dollars.






Looking forward to any information thank you.

Micky (Heading to Shanghai in October anyone want something from there?)

Morning all , well it here any way .

Bunge and Mickey I will give it a go and McGooley will correct me if I`m wrong.

Bunge
1. 82 {5} second duplex NR Wangaratta .
2. 82 {2} TYPE A2R . R
3. 82 {4} Non Duplex RRRR.

Mickey.

Dunolly 239 {1} type 2b NR .
Bull town 498 {1} type 4a NNR ?????????????
324 ?? I think might be 824 of Fitzroy 824 {3} worn state NR
Jan Juc 384 {1} Type 3a R
Harcourt 182 {2} type 18 S but I tend to think it may be 182?
Lake Mundi M4 Type 10a R
Lardner M20 10A S
Bong Bong R.S. M24 S
Katamatite M47 Type 10a NR
St Kilda R.S.2nd duplex NR
Bullengarook East MC 65 Type11a SS
Arcadiars MCC75 Type 12b NR

See how I go

REGARDS

C. P .

_________________
Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

Cheers compoundperf, actually the lot of 82 are also mine , and seeing 4R amongst makes me a happier man, I'm always happy anyway. I was going with the 324 by the shape of the middle part of 3 looks a lot like a 3, I guess you could be right it is a bit difficult to work out. the 182 could be 1821, going by the width of the bars.

Is someone able to direct me to a place that shows me the types, I have checked the pics on the first page but some don't make sense to me when I read 10a, 3b and 12b totally lost here

Thanks again this is truely a wonderful place
Micky

Hi Mickey ,

Don`t get to excited just yet as I`m only a beginner here to so might be wrong , we will have to wait for "DIVINE" intervention from McGooley yet .
The 498 is the one I would be excited over NNR "Number Not Recorded" now that`s Rare I think .

Sorry about the 82`s as Bunge`s was the 289`s which I think is Hotham 289{5} 3rd duplex 8 and 9 are smaller than the 2 rated RR

I went with 824 as 324 is a type 3 which it not , and yes the types are confusing at times.

Regards

C . P .

_________________
Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

I m happy to hear anything about my collection, a little bit goes a long way for me.

There is a lady I know she has been collecting stamps for 40 years and a huge collection she has too, I have asked her about BN & BO and she does have some in her collection can't wait to see them and hopefully she will sell, (and a lot of Mint chinese stamps )
Thanks compoundperf, we are all learners.

Micky

Hi Mickey ,

The more I look at the 182 I`m convinced it`s a type 18 so it would be 182 some thing but you "wouldn`t believe it" in the book "The numeral cancellations of Vic" there is only 1 picture from 1820 to 1829 that of 1823 being Fulham R.S.

And the lowest rated is an S through to 4R and a NNR so we will just have to wait and see.

I have been tied up of late with one thing or another and have just finished sorting out a my latest lots , but the computer crashed and I have a new one now but need to sort out my scanner as it doesn`t like the new comp .

So in the near future I will get them posted , there`s about 180 or so

Regards

C . P .

_________________
Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

Hi Micky

Wangaratta's 82 - 2nd duplex, 1st duplex, non-duplex (4R)

Dunolly's type 2B 239; check the stamp on the second (that LOOKS like an English BN, the Vic shouldn't have side-bars); your '324' is Fitzroy's 2nd duplex of 824; Carlton's 6th duplex of 538; your '182' is 182? (numerals give it away as being a 1800 number - might be difficult to positively id this one).

second row: Katamatite's M47; Arcadia R.S.'s MCC75; St. Kilda R.S.'s 2nd duplex of MC24; Bayswater's MCC82; Bullengarook East's MC65; Lardner's M20; Lake Mundi's R-rated M4.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Excuse me if I'm jumping into the wrong thread but is this a 6 or a 9 and what town or State is it likely to be from ?

_________________
Donald.
Aus KGV Head Addict !

Hi Boy`s and Girl`s,

Well then McGooley I only got two wrong then ?? the 498 and the 824 of Fitzroy .

I went for 824 {3} second duplex "worn state" as the numbers looked thicker ???.

But I did miss the side bars on the 498 and it would be interesting if an English P.M. Specialist might be able to I.D. it if indeed that is what it is , and I a have a few Aussie ones with pommie cancels some where.

Regards

C . P .

_________________
Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

Hi manfaefife ,

I make this one a 9 of Beechworth, "Sixth duplex" three short horizontal bars at each side of 9 {7mm high}.
In use 1904 on with last use noted on 1d Roo 5 .11.1913.

Regards

C . P .

_________________
Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

Thank you very much C.P. I've just gotten into KGV heads, Roo's and numeral postmarks are maybe next on the list but better keep my feet on the ground and Just knock in the odd one here and there to check out. It's a start with this one and I had a 54 of I believe Kilmore I put on another thread, that again was on a 1d Roo.

_________________
Donald.
Aus KGV Head Addict !

compoundperf and mcgooley two heads are better then one, British BN another one to be confused about, WOW!.

compoundperf, thank you for going to so much trouble to find more out on this International BN, and mcgooley thank you for confirming the 4R and the others.

Micky is happy

Hi Donald,

Yes I would think this is the 3rd duplex of Kilmore not rated and is known on Roo`s and KGV Issues , nice one .

Regards

C .P .

_________________
Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

Hi everyone, here is something I thought was a bit odd but to the experts maybe not, there is a double cancel and different sizes, maybe it is nothing or maybe it has some rariety about it. Happy to hear anything even if it is a normal cancel.



Cheers
Micky is Happy

Well what do you know?
I have both the Victoria and Queensland books now (thank you Glen on the Queensland pair - they're GREAT).
What do I come across in a 25c cover sale??? Of course a New South Wales cover

It looks like #1261 from Drummoyne - that seems to be the easy part.

I have 2 questions though:
1) Is this a scarce or rare postmark?
2) Is it common to find the numeral portion of the postmark on the front and the town cancel portion on the back?
3) Or am I wrong and the front has the originating postmark 1251 from Gentleman's Halt and the back the receiving postmark at Drummoyne???

Thanks,
ghopper02

Good evening or good day to all.
Here are a couple I recently purchased and I would like to know if the No.52 is the 4R and the lines above the number are not straight, is this normal? And the MCCC would it be a 85 or 35 or even a 65? A tricky one yes maybe some technique to finding it out.



Thank you for your help again.
Micky is happy

Hi Micky, My guess is that your #52 is from Launceston in Tassie.. It looks similar to my #52 cancel, have a look on page 4 of this thread, up the very top.. It appears to have 3 ((( ))) side bars and Victorian one only had 2 (( )) ..

I won't comment on your MCCC, I'll leave that for mcgooley, she is the resident expert in these BNs..

I could be wrong about your #52, but man it looks like mine
as far as the figures go..

Cheers Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hey Bunge how are you? A Tassie one, ohh well rare or not that will go in my number cancels used in other state selection, well it's the first actually . I will have a look at page 4 for sure. Yes mcgooley must have a masters degree in BN.

Talking of cancels, are the circular cancels with town names and dates graded as in R's? I have a couple pages of them names such as Chiltern, Hexham, Yarrawonga, Rutherglen, Toorak & Donald plus a lot more. Is there a SB thread I can post scans too?

Thanks for your help Bunge
Micky is happy

Hi Micky, some cancels have a rating other than BNs, I have seen them in Auctions other than ebay.. I have a swag of them written down (free hand) but most of mine are from SA, as I have many old squared circle cancels..

I don't know the names of reference books for them, perhaps mcgooley would know or put you onto a web-site..
Here is a CD for Qld Cancels :-
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... 0605371591

Mcgooley gave me this site some time back when I enquired about TPO cancels.. You may have some in your Vic stamps, the cancel will have "Up Train" or "Down Train" on them.. If you had the full card or letter it would have had a large TPO cancel with it.. After I found out about those cancels I went through all my Vic stamps again and found about 50 such cancels..
http://www.stampsofvictoria.com/tpo.php

I'll be interested to see what mcgooley has to say !!

Cheers Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi folks, sorry I've been M.I.A. - had a bit on my plate.

ghopper02, I can't help you with rarity or otherwise for you N.S.W. item. It does look like 1261 of Drummoyne; I would suggest that it was becoming more common to have the date-stamp on all items after Australia's inclusion in the U.P.U.
Interesting though, given the address on the form, that there are no transit markings and the rate is all wrong for England.

Micky, your 1904 tuppenny mauve with the Melbourne cancels is interesting (to me) because it appears that the Melbourne 'double-circle' cancel has been overstruck by one of the older style cancellers - but I can see no code

Your '52' is Launceston, Tasmania, and is quite common on interstate stamps (the same way the Melbourne 'killer' is, and for the same reason). Any uncancelled mail which hit the post office received one of these cancellations. (Still gets a few people excited on Feebay.)

Your MCCC?5 is 1365 from Narbethong. The 'trick' to knowing some of these partial numbers is knowing the stamp, and knowing the post office. The ha'penny pink was first issued in February 1887. Brooklyn (1335) P.O. closed in June 1883 (in fact that number is NNR), and Parkville's original 1385 '5' has a different shape. The shape is almost right for Parkville's duplex - but the C's are wrong - and added to that, the partial number is the wrong shape for an '8'.

Regarding the cds cancels, there is no better site than that of PPA, this page takes you to log-in - if you're already signed up;

https://www.premierpostal.com/cgi-bin/wsProd.sh/ProcessLogin.p

but this one takes you to their post office information;

https://www.premierpostal.com/cgi-bin/wsProd.sh/po.w?

For a small annual fee, David provides an enormous wealth of information about the scarcity, or otherwise, of cancellations from many post offices, including nearly all from Victoria.

David was one of the WWW team who started the "Post Offices and Hand-held Datestamps of Victoria". There were 2 volumes published, before the death of John Webster caused the project to fall over. (I really must hit David for commissions soon )

As a (very) general rule of thumb, if the BN has a serious rating, then the early cancellations tend to follow suit for all the obvious reasons. It's only after the wheels fell off during the 1890's depression that things started to change. Many post offices were officially closed, but still continued to act as receiving offices; being uprated and down-rated all over the shop until June 1927, when things started to calm down.

Les Molnar's website, as quoted by Bunge, is an excellent source of material for the T.P.O.s

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Hi Ghopper02, I found this, which was sold on ebay about 6 weeks ago for $15.00, it is the very same cancel..
Sorry I cannot be of more help..

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/NSW-1888-Syd ... 0820359190

Cheers Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi mcgooley, hope everything is ok your healthy and relaxed. Thanks Bunge again, you and mcgooley have a lot of valuable information to share in your own time.

The double cancel I thought would be interesting, do you need a closer scan maybe? Not sure if it would help though, I have to keep an eye out on the other cancels.

The cancels I meant are the unframed, I never realised cancels alone can be scarce and worth the searching, I am collecting all the info my little brain can take and I don't want to take to much of yours and others and thank you for your help as always.

Here is part of what I have of the unframed, nothing fancy but something else to look out for.




Cheers again
Micky is happy

Hi mcgooley, have a few more I want to get off my table, so I thought I would post them for your opinion..
Top row
MD 27 - What type is this one ?
535 or 538 ?
MC? 70
212 ?
147 ?
Bottom row
4?? - Any ideas, the R cancel doesn't help much !!
1620 - Unrated or type 16A.. I think 16A is Romans !!
?61 - Possibly 661
377 ?
MC 24 - What type is this ?
??5 - Any ideas




Thanks mcgooley, hope you are OK and not run off your feet..
Cheers Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Good day every one.

I have a couple in need of I.D please.
1. 63 I think.
2. MCC85 or MCCC85 a bit hard to read, I could try darken the scan.
3. 13_ something a possible 8?
4. A nice number, stamp is a bit damaged though, is this another British BN?


Ok now the two below are interesting for me, they have NSW cancels but the date is very late 1936 I think, is this normal??


One other thing, I have a few of the two pence Stamp Duty 1886-97 from dark violet similar to the MCC BN colour above to a very light pink colour, are shades something to keep an eye out on as well?

cheers
Micky is happy

Micky, the world of date-stamps is almost a topic in itself. In most instances the unframed on stamp are probably part of a duplex - for those offices who had 'em - up until the 1900s: unless the BN had gone walkabout, the date-stamp was more commonly used as a 'receiving', rather than a 'sending', mark; and more likely to be found away from the stamp either on the front or the back of the cover.

The exceptions are the "M.O.O. & S.B." (Money Order Office & Savings Bank) from the larger offices, along with the 'Registered', &c.

That doesn't mean they're totally worthless, many people collect them, and there's always the possibility of a new find. There have been a number of instances of pre-Commonwealth era (i.e. double date-line) date-stamp impressions being found doing things they shouldn't ought have.

Regarding Victorian stamps being cancelled outside the state, and outside what you would regard as the normal usage period - I believe it was PeterS on another thread who pointed out that until the change-over to decimal currency in 1966, all pre-decimal stamps were valid for postage. A couple of years ago here on SB I sold a cover which had a mixture of KGV and QLD stamps. I remember it mostly because it had a 4d Lemon KGV among the mix. (And my grandson still doesn't have one for his collection )



On- and into my comfort zone.
1. Murchison's second duplex '63'; 2. Parkville's duplex MCCC85 - this can throw some people off because the '85' isn't aligned directly under the 'MCCC', which was a common trait of most of the duplexes in this range; 3. My instinct tells me this is 138 of Hexham - instinct has been known to go walkabout before now!; 4. Definitely a nice example of Eganstown's 332, not exactly common (S-rating, and I don't have one )

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Pete, health is fine.....dealing with my first stamp-show is not. I have enormous respect for anyone who can manage to herd cats (totally off topic, but amusing; there was a town in Germany (?) which employed a number of cats to deliver mail - the experiment lasted about 6 weeks or so. The cats were undisciplined [unlike Geelong]).

Top row.
MD27 is Windsor's duplex; Carlton's (538) 7th Duplex; [almost positive] MCCC70 of Goorambat R.S. (the alignment of the numbers under the romans make me think this); I lean towards 213 of Berwick; absolutely positive this is Clunes (147) 2nd duplex.

Bottom row.
I'd stake the kids' inheritance that this is 435 of Bannockburn; 1620 is Mildura's duplex (in blue, which tags it as from the 1890's). The roman numerals were only from 1000 (Youarang's 'M') to 1599 (Carrajung's MD99, and then Carrajung had a 1599 duplex just to make life interesting); 561 of Balnarring; 877 of Stradbrook; St. Kilda Rwy Stn MC24 is that office's 2nd duplex; gunna take a punt and say that this is 683 of Tabilk R.S.

After the coming weekend, the MOTH and I are heading bush for a while - to a place there ain't been no such thing as a post office for over 40 years

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks once again for your valuable information mcgooley.. I have a few more then a few more after that, then that pretty well clears up all the questionable ones for the moment.. Paying for my solar panels each month, (only 9 months to go) has taken care of any "spare stamp money" that I have.. So I have to "play" with what "toys" I have right now !!

Okies here we go :-
Top Row
126 ? - A bit smudgy..
53? - The 3 is different from the last one I posted above, so it is either Carlton but a different duplex or it is Bailieston..
12? - 128 or 129 ?
180 ???
52 ?? - Or should there be another # making it 5 twenty something ??

Bottom Row
828 ???
1091 (M91) - Is this type 10A ?
1008 (M8) - Or is it M 80 something ?
142 ?? - If it is, it's type 1B if I'm not mistaken..
20 ?? - Or is it 200 and something ?
561 ?? - It looks like the "foot" of a 1 at the bottom to me..




Thanks again mcgooley..
Enjoy your break away from stamps and Post Offices.. The weather is on the improve, so I hope it stays nice for you..


Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Top row:
120 of Wedderburn's only duplex.
538 of Carlton's 6th duplex; the first six duplexes had straight tops to the '3' - the last two were rounded - but the 6th has the '5' leaning backwards to the right.
The hint of curve on the last digit strongly suggest to me that this is 129 of Epping, rather than Wedderburn's first issue. (The head of the '8' for Cheltenham is quite small.)
Your 4th strike is type 18, which puts it in the 1800-1867 run. I think this might be from the '1860s' range - but which one is open to question. The bars indicate it *might* be 1861 of Rhodes.
Last strike looks very like a partial 522 of Happy-go-Lucky. There are a couple of numbers in the 520 run which have distinctive '2s': 522 and Llanelly's 527.

Bottom row:
I agree with the possibility of this being Fitzroy North's 828.
M91 is Numurkah's 2nd duplex. In the original 10A issues, the 'M' is a lot smaller than the numerals.
Nathalia's M83 duplex. There were only two duplexes in the 1080 range, and the other - Kyabram's 1084 - did not use the roman system.
Fourth on the row looks very like Frankston's 1B issue of 142. The office used this canceller through until 1900 (this has an R-rating), when the authorities sent them a duplex.
Looks very like Toorak's type 2 201, judging by the centering of the top and bottom bars.
Balnarring's 561.

Looking forward to the break - don't care what the weather does. The only thing the gods haven't thrown at us - yet - is a severe snow-storm. The oz-tent has coped with everything else
Regards.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

A red letter day for me!!!
I think I have managed to post my first pictures and this is one of them.
I purchased the Qld Numerals Cancellations book from Glen and this is what I found hidden in my mob of Roo's.

It is a slightly smudged type 1e 79 cancellation of Herberton (Qld) on an Officially used (Large OS) 1d Roo and rated at RRRRR.
Cheers,
Frank (Electric Chook)

Hi Frank, well that was a good find Is that cancel rated 5R or is a combination of Roo, OS perf & cancel

Cheers Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

G,day Bunge.
The Bernard and Manning "Queensland Numeral Cancellations" states the following regarding Numeral 79 allocations, issues predominantly used on, numeral type and ratings:
Gainsford opened 28/11/66, closed 24/05/74 - Chalon - 1e (6.5mm) - RRR
Boolburra opened 25/05/74, reduced to a Railway Office 01/08/76 - Chalon - 1e - RRRRR
Herberton opened 22/11/80, Sideface - 1e - C
Commonwealth - 1e - RRRRR
The stamp itself as a used 1st Watermark Large OS would fetch up to $8.00 and has little bearing on the value associated with the cancellation.
I have no idea of its value suffice to say that if it was a Victorian issue RRRRR, it would realize a greater value as many more people collect numerals from that state than from Queensland it seems.
Cheers,
Frank (Electric Chook)

Hi again Frank, thanks for the info , now I have just added another book to my list.. I got into Vic BNs back in May this year and often when you buy a Lot of stamps from ebay you often get a mixed back of States and I have no reference to any of the other States as to rarity.. I have reference to the # indicating the town but not its rating..

Cheers Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi mcgooley, I trust you had a nice holiday .. I am assuming you are back home now..

The pile gets smaller then it gets bigger again, funny thing that Here are a few that I cannot squirrel until I have your thoughts..

743 ? - Looks like it to me..
145 ? - Looks like it to me..
705 or 105 ? - Doesn't look like I have the "foot" for a 1..
885 ? - Been struck twice and it appears to be an 8 at the biginning of the second strike..




MC?4 - Any idea by the stamp, the type as to the #..
888 ? - I am sure it is the right way up..
?84 - Any ideas ?
142 ? - Looks like a partial strike of Frankston's 142, type 1B..





1,281 ? - Looks like it to me..
1,43? - Interesting strike this one.. Most of the 1,430 somethings have a rating and those that don't don't look like the top of the last #.. I blew it right up and still cannot work it out.. Perhaps with your detective skills you can nail it..
1918 ? - I am assuming it is as I think there should be a 1 before the #s because of the size of the top & bottom bars.. Plus 918 is a 5R cancel I think..
146 ? - Looks like it, Type 1B





Thanks mcgooley
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi Pete, holiday was great, just got to get the webbs removed from between the toes I found some old post-towns and the MOTH found some peace and quiet away from the rat-race.

740 - first issue of Rosebrook. Not really common (with an R-rating).
145 - recut of Chewton.
105 - second allocation of this number, (it went first to Goldborough) to Jeparit (formerly Lake Hindmarsh), manufactured and issued in 1882. Has an S-rating.
885 - Grantville. Common as muck, odd as it might seem now but the railway station used to do a roaring trade.

1124 - second duplex of St. Kilda Railway Station. The gap between the 'M' and 'C' ("all I want for Christmas is my two front teeth") give it away.
388 - Mt. Prospect. A tangible reminder of a post office which closed in 1967.
1084 - Kyabram's second duplex.
142 - Frankston's original issue. (The '2' gives the game away.)

1281 - Lyonsville only ever had the one issue.
Both 1435 (Mardan) and 1438 (Greenwald) are RR-rated; it's a toss-up between them, but based on the thinness of the top bar I'm coming down on the side of Mardan.
1918 - Rokeby's post office was at the railway station.
146 - Rokewood never had a prayer of being rated. In its time, one of the richest and busiest alluvial gold fields in Australia.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Looks beyond doubt to me Frank .. that one has paid for the book on its own!

Glen