Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

From my next "Stamp News" column.

A LOT of folks do not know how to pick the differences on these pricey stamps.

Some new ACSC printing figures from the bowels of the archives that show the "Thin" paper is TWELVE times less plentiful than the "Thick" paper.

Data NEVER been published before.

This stamp could easily double in value in the next decade.

Full details here:

http://www.glenstephens.com/snaugust07.html

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

Useful tip, Glen. Thanks.

Although you focus on the £1 value, the 10/- thin paper is just as hard to find.

And the 5/- thin paper no-imprint left corner block -- a very ordinary-looking item -- catalogues at $1,500.

They're extremely rare. I wonder how many lurk unnoticed in collections or dealer's stocks?

I notice from your listings that you're selling duck stamps at 10% of face. The philatelic equivalent of phone cards?

Greg

Greg agree the 10/- THIN robes is also tough to find.

There was the same tiny 160,000 print of that, whereas the THICK printing was 1.44 million.

USED with circa 1949 cancel it would of course be near as tough as the £1 Thin.

Geoff Kellow told me Rodney Perry had never seen a cover of either. I phoned Rod afterwards to check and he said he had in fact seen one of the £1 in recent times. I didn't ask about the 10/- on cover!

In fact Rod left the phone call to come and check out this board, so hopefully we'll entice him to sign up and join in.

Yes those Duck stamps were someone's VERY bad buy. Some very naughty folks in oze use them on parcel mail I hear tell. Very cheap parcels on that basis if it works for them.

http://www.glenstephens.com/duck_stamps.html

I guess to some newer PO staff they appear to be yet just another 13 year old stamp they have not seen before?

Glen

Thanks for all this information.

For a newbie like myself, I will now show my total ignorance by asking the question, what do you mean by the term "no imprint" in your post?

I have looked up some of the books I am now starting to gather, but have not been able to find this term.... yet.

Thank you

The very EASIEST term to understand.

Here's what the lower left corner of a 5/- robes sheet usually looks like:



If you find a lower left corner block without the writing in the margin, you've found the rare one.

Greg

AAAhhh...

Well... that WAS an easy one ... and obvious too when you know what to look for ... Thanks!

Interesting that your two blocks have perf pins misaligned in the same places. Those two were printed at around the same time.

Greg

Greg -- you are right - interesting. That RH red block is an aberration as it is in fact ink stripping that meant the imprint did not print. There are actually little specks on red on he selvedge. Oddly that was "constant" for a short time.

That is a very rare piece and I sold it last month. So it literally was printed with an imprint wording on the plate but doctor blade or ink stripping meant it did not print except for a few specks.

What repandi is asking about is this below from my current ad. This is a COMMON block with imprint - a dollar or two. This one was from a small printing made with NO imprint. Cat $125 like this.

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

Neat block -- you can see the ink stripping in the corner of the bottom left stamp, too.

Greg

Boy you have GOOD eyesight Greg .. or a 30" plasma monitor .. one or the other.

Hi everyone

Could someone help me out with the following please if it's not too much trouble?

In regard to the 5/ Robes lower left block was the imprint in the same position on the sheet in the lower left for all of the following releases or were they located in different positions to differentiate between between the 3 releases:

5/- Robes(Thick)
5/- Robes(Thin)
5/- Robes(Thin Tinted)

Many thanks and kind regards

Cobby

Well, all I can help with was that there was both an Ash and a By Authority Imprint for the thick paper 5/- issue, and only a By Authority for the other two.

Norm

Thanks Norm

Thank you Glen, Norm and others

this is great and just what is needed to help grow the hobby. my interest in Aussie and NZ is growing by the day.

Rgds

Colin

_________________
Philatelists are not boring old F A R T S that smell of mothballs

How do u tell the differance

Yes I know nothing.

It is a very interesting field.

SG178c for sale by Melbourne dealer, February 2010 $1375

Thick paper imprints, upper and lower sheet. By the way, these have to be
thick paper (regardless of shade variation), since they have Ash imprints. John Ash ceased to be the Note and Stamp Printer in very early 1940s and the thin paper variants of the Robes came out in the late 1940s.

Upper (perforations through bottom margin)



Lower (no perforstions through bottom margin)

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Thin paper imprint, now with impersonal By Authority imprint.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

The thick paper is actually a chalk surfaced paper and the watermark is quite often dificult to see. The Thin paper is almost transparant, by comparison, and the watermark is clearly visible (have a look at the 2 types of imprint above and compare the stamps themselves).

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Thin paper?



Hmm...I need to clean my scanner; the stamp doesn't have that brown spot on it.

You need a new scanner Eric.

Very hard to be certain on that murky scan, but more likely to be THIN with watermark showing on back like that.

This one I listed for sale yesterday shows what one REALLY looks like.

Certainly appears to be a thin paper to me, Eric. You don't get that sort of clarity in the watermark from the thick (chalk surfaced) paper.

Nice stamp and unusually well centered for these. The large size made perforating difficult.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Webmaster added a quite superbly centred MUH block of the £1 Thin paper to my rarity page an hour back, that shows the watermark wonderfully!

http://www.glenstephens.com/rarity.html

There were TWELVE times less of these sold than the THICK paper, and the fact current retail is about the same is an absolute joke.

A TON of the £1 Thick paper were hoarded by black market speculators at the end of the War to "hide" funny money. It was the highest face value on sale at POs in the mid 40s.

When decimal currency arrived in 1966, one could swap over LSD stamps face for face for Decimals, and HEAPS of £1 Thicks were swapped, as their retail value was still around face and nobody wanted them.

Large dealers at the time like Roy Mueller and Ken Baker told me they personally swapped over 1000s of copies.

The demand for the new Decimal stamps from Aust and territories was HUGE, especially from overseas dealers and collectors, so taking $1000s of dead stock and swapping it into something you could sell fast at a nice profit appealed greatly!

Glen

Apart from the imprint block, I have this corner block. The centering is much more typical than the nice centering on your block, Glen!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Folks,

I was offered the £1 Thin paper on cover recently and declined. I think I made a mistake.

Tim

Do you have a scan Tim?

A LOT of errors made on ID'ing them.

Well, that would depend on the price quoted I suspect.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

I had forgotten just how short the life of the £1 Thin Paper was, only about 7 months before it was replaced by the £1 Arms. So on piece usage will be tough to find.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Glen,

No I dont but Rod had viewed it. The price was about $1000 from a top Melbourne dealer.

Tim

Would the top two blocks 5/- be thin paper ?

They look more transparent than the others to me ?

The scan is from an auction listing but it doesn't mention thin paper

_________________

Collecting - Stamps, poster stamps and covers that feature Kangaroos.
Wanted: Illustrated Tourist cover of "Waratah Park", Sydney, NSW. Australia

Skippy, the 2 x 5/- blocks in the top scan are thin paper.

The rest are thick, all with ASH imprints - thin paper were "By Authority".

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Well YES and NO.

YES in the REAL WORLD, that most of us here thankfully inhabit.

But NO in that ether world of clueless dreamers, and con men and idiots called EBAY!

So only on EBAY, the home of every Bunny Buyer to ever have hopped on this planet, we get the TOTALLY UNIQUE Ash imprint Pairs offered on THIN paper!

http://cgi.ebay.ph/Robes-1-Blue-Slate-Thin-Paper-John-Ash-Imprint-Pair-/250665811128



The either clueless or deceptive seller - officialidsport - called this pair -

1949 Robes £1 Blue-Slate Thin Paper John Ash Imprint Pair -MNG - SG # 178a

NOTE - Please note scans are a pivotal part of my description.

===============

Total fiction and misrepresentation of common thick paper, as the far scarcer THIN paper.

Now anyone with any brains knows the main way "no gum" copies of this exist, are that it was once mint with heavily toned gum and rust spotting. Being chalk faced paper these stamps absorb moisture and fox easily. Toned imprints are a dime a dozen.

They either add absurd looking obvious "zinco" forged cancels, like these from 3partners - previously 'mentioned in dispatches' here - calling them "Fine Used" (gee, a 1930 cancel on a stamp not issued until 1937!) and then cheerfully offer them to the bunnies for $US150.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360248587619



Or in the case of "no gum" - the seller most likely - has washed off the gum, probably given the item a light bleach too, thus removing part of the chalk facing, and offered the 2 now treated stamps on ebay.

So we now have 2 x treated and no gum stamps, worth say $15-$20 each in the real world.

What do the ebay Bunnies madly push it up to - via 14 frantic bids on it - - $A122.11!

The successful bidder was - scamprex - to be fair the seller was Australian, and the deceit was in him calling it "Thin paper SG 178a."

So shame on officialidsport - and I trust you refund in full on this dreadful mis-description - if anyone wants to email scamprex so he can chase a refund, this link to this thread is - http://tinyurl.com/ebayBunnies

A Thin paper £1 looks nothing remotely like a Thick paper - imprint or no imprint. Mint or used.

Hey scamprex - they do say life is a learning curve. Send me $A122.121 and I, or any other REAL stamp dealer in the country will mail you an Ash Imprint pair £1 Robes with ORIGINAL GUM!

Aaah, ebay never ceases to astound me. The seller's knowledge is generally as low as the buyers, and we then have a clueless match, made in heaven! The blind leading the blind.

Paying $122 for "bargains" that no real dealer would pay $22 for.

Glen

Members,

Could anyone check the R in CTO's from that period.

Cannot get to mine at present but it does not match same on 1930 cancelled KGV.

PS I wanted to bump this thread.

Thanks Peter and Glen
It was in a lot at Prestige today (3/10)

whoever won it will get a nice surprise as the Thin paper robes were not described in the lot.

_________________

Collecting - Stamps, poster stamps and covers that feature Kangaroos.
Wanted: Illustrated Tourist cover of "Waratah Park", Sydney, NSW. Australia

Skippy .. no big deal as the 5/- are worth basically the same each and ares dead easy to pick apart visually.

Skippy, as Glen says...even without the imprints you could pick the 5/- blocks as being thin paper.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Hi All
Got this strip of 4, 1 Pound Robes and not sure of paper
Thanks in advance
Ron

_________________
lake090

Thick for certain.

Thanks Glen
Thought it would be
Ron

_________________
lake090

I bought this one at a show for $15.

I'm guessing thin as it shows wmk easily on back? It also isn't as white as my other copy.


(Off topic- I managed to get some nice mint and used KGV heads for cheap!)

Erik .. well spotted .. yes that is the scarce THIN paper.

Scott does NOT list it, therefore most USA dealers do not even know it exists.

A very good buy for $15!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Whopee!

I managed to sneak in my brand-spankin-new ASC cat to that show. There was a full sheet of ½d line perfs for $10, but I didn't have enough room in my bag.

Glen said:



I read somewhere that the reason for the large usage of the 5/- value is that they were popularly used as currency. At the time the lowest cash note was 10/- (a pretty large sum then).

People would used mint 5/- stamps particularly when mailing payments.

Is that a likely explanation?

_________________
Focus on the positive

In the above picture is the 10/- on thin paper because of the "By Authority..." imprint ?

thanks

_________________
Focus on the positive

Rather unlikely I would think. The only way to cash them in would be to sell them and the PO deducted 10% in those days as a handling fee.

There was no 5/- (Crown) coin, other than for the years 1937 and 1938 (they were wildly unpopular because of size), but all denominations up to 2/- were otherwise available. If sending money through the mail, people either used cheques or money orders (pretty much as now).

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

The THICK came with BOTH types of imprints. The THIN only had Authority.

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

Thanks Glen that explains it.

By the way, I emailed 3 partners as that lot is still for sale (buy now $150) about the disparity between the date of issue and the date on the cancel.

LINK: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360248587619&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123

This was his answer:



yeah right! 7 years out of date?

alex

_________________
Focus on the positive