Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Manfaelife

Your 1 1/2d looks like 7R60, listed as 85(7)n.

It's interesting that neither marginal watermark line is evident.

_________________
mobbor

Thank you mobbor, that's spot on. I looked and looked at the composite pictures and Just couldn't identify it, but now that you've told me I can see it so clearly ! Apologies for not showing the back, I just bought a few albums and I was scanning them on the album pages, if I'd looked I would have seen a right and bottom watermark line on the back, which would have given me the perfect result duh ! Ah well it's all about learning isn't it ?

_________________
Donald.
Aus KGV Head Addict !

Some comments on the back of stamps when plateing:-

1. This mostly refers to single watermarks, which have marginal watermark lines. And yes that does include the 3d.

2. The absence of a marginal line doesn't prove conclusively that the stamp is not marginal because the printing can be misplaced, but

3.Potentially 28 of 60 cliches in a pane can have a marginal line & this narrows down the task considerably.

4. Kainnikanada has shown us that knowing exactly where the Crown/A lies can explain apparent flaws, because the watermark thins the paper & sometimes affects the inking. This phenomenon is probably more apparent on the the large multiple watermarks which sometimes produce an indecipherable mess.

Regards,

_________________
mobbor

Welcome back mobbor I hope you had a good time away.

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

mobbor:

Back with a bang.

I had thought about posting a comment regarding watermarks but that darn brick wall stood in my way. To the novice collector it seems only the front of a stamp is important. Sometimes that's only 50% of the story.

Anyhow...

I'll begin work on a wiki of watermarks and their aid in plating - I sort have something embedded in my 1/- Roo thread but I might need to elaborate.

Don't have much material post Third watermark, other than some Geo V ½d Large Multi, so I'll need some scans of Stampboards' member's material showing large multiples of later watermarks either Roo or Geo V.

_________________
------------------------------------------
Anyone else accumulating NWPI material for research?

Good afternoon (and it's a wet one),

Is the attached plateable, please...

2d Die 2 SM 13½: Cross - compartment line; and break in Roo's leg.

Thank you

Clemo

The flaw on the roo's leg is not constant, but the compartment line makes it 2R11.

_________________
mobbor

This 1½d has a flaw at the top of the emu's leg, which looks similar to 19L10 in the checklist, though the shape is different, any thoughts ?

_________________
Donald.
Aus KGV Head Addict !

Hi Donald,

Try 13R53.

Cheers

Staples

Thank you very much Staples, I committed the usual mistake, forgetting to look at the Part 1 which I always assume is the 1½d Brown's forgetting about plates 13 & 14

_________________
Donald.
Aus KGV Head Addict !

Thank you mobbor...

Hi,

Another to be plated if possible...

4½d Die 1 LS, no visible watermark line, - bottom frame overinked maybe? and the RVT figure 1 looks a tad wonky.

Thank you

Two more oddities here, both swmk. I'm guessing these are just one-off flaws, but happy to hear otherwise:


Emu 'egg' between legs, white dot in RVT and break, various other little flaws.


NN of penny is broken at top. Also a wider question; considering all of this lot I have are pre-rough paper, would this count as a dry ink? I have worse ones, I'd be interested to know if it is or if it has to be much worse to be considered dry ink. Thanks

Clemo

I can't come up with anything for your 4 1/2d.

_________________
mobbor

mobbor,

Thanks for trying. Another one for the 'maybe one day' drawer...

Chris

Can't up with anything for your 1st scan. The flaws you point to are not constant. There are virtually no constant coloured flaws on the 1d.

The 2nd I think is 2/23, based on the notch in the cross -at the top of the crown- & the ragged top frame at right. The postmark at the top doesn't help (although it's a fine one, as is the 1st) & it would be good to get a 2nd opinion.

In relation to shades, 'smooth' & 'rough' paper are relative terms. Some smooth papers are less smooth than others. In 1915 G15 reddish pink is regarded as 'semi surfaced', but Jan. is too early.

Dry ink is something completely different & is also usually found in post 1915 stamps. If you try the search function you might find some examples. If not I can post one here.

_________________
mobbor

mobbor:

You're spot on with the 2-23 id.

This one is from a block of 12 in my collection.

_________________
------------------------------------------
Anyone else accumulating NWPI material for research?

Would some kind person with access to literature regarding the KGV 2d Red Die 3 post up the various States of 2L6.
The example in B-W does not match the example shown in the wiki.

Thank you...

02L06 in the wiki is State one
Image in ACSC is State two

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

Thanks, GUTTERS...

Then this is 2L6 State 2...

Is the left stamp 18R21 joined ST of of postage?

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

Gutters

At this stage I'm unsure. I do not have a copy & it doesn't seem be in exactly the right place. It that no wmk?

_________________
mobbor

Yes no wmk shame there is nothing on 22

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

GUTTERS

For those that don't know the paper used for No Wmk stamps generally led to small horizontal white 'flecks'. It's not as bad as usual here, but it helps to explain the couple of shade line breaks on the right-hand stamp that are not plateable.

No wmk paper was only used for plates 17 & 18, so it's at least odds-on that the plateing is correct.

_________________
mobbor

How odd, I thought I posted this.



Its a 2 dollar ebay stamp, I bid early with no contest.
I bid the 99c because I recognised the break in the bottom frame, but now I cant find the reference to it.
Can I ask for help plating it please?

_________________
People will like you more if you stfu.

Barry_E

I thought for a while that UCV A1 might have been a chance, but the break in yours is approx 7mm from the right corner not 5mm as described for A1. The date puts it as electro 1.

It's listed in the BSAP checklist. Has the broken upper left corner of the LVT as well. I recently picked up an NWPI copy of this variety.

_________________
------------------------------------------
Anyone else accumulating NWPI material for research?

1L1 1st state a,b & c.

2nd state, a-c as before with (d) a flaw on the lower portion of the 'I' of 'AUSTRALIA', which almost joins the 'A'.

_________________
------------------------------------------
Anyone else accumulating NWPI material for research?

Hi everyone in KGV world, hope all are well.

I have one that looks to be over inked, and maybe some going on around the kangaroo head, any thoughts? Wmk, crown over A.


Cheers
Michael

Kainnikanada, thankyou.

If you want the back scan for your research I can clean it up , as it is very dirty a.t.m. and nothing is visable.

_________________
People will like you more if you stfu.

Hi Micky

Re: your 1 1/2d Die 1

The bottom is badly worn & over-inked. Such damage is rarely plateable. In this case I'm confident it is plateable via an outward notch on the left inner frame just above the top projecting point. It's 17R57.

_________________
mobbor

Wow that bad, I thought someone spilt the ink on this one. It's great to have your help mobber, thanks. And I just see that notch, so tiny .

Thank you mobber
Michael

barry_e:

Could you email a high resolution scan of the front only? 1200 dpi. I'd like to eventually use it for a composite checklist of Electros 1 and 3 that I hope to prepare.

_________________
------------------------------------------
Anyone else accumulating NWPI material for research?

Are this lines "normal" or is this "irregularity" somewhere noted?



It is a single WM and has a bad "thin" on the back, do I keep it or dump it?
Perforation on the right side ok but looks that way from the postmark!

Thank you for your info!

Peter

The shading lines are more than likely the same as the shading lines left of the left value tablet just filled with ink.
Your stamp is more than likely 1R58

Left value Tablet: Shilling stroke has a white flaw attached to it's upper left side (variable)

Would like a 2nd opinion on this as we don't have many in the wiki for this value and it would be nice to add it

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

Hi GUTTERS

Another tough one- funny, they're all tough since I got back from holidays.

I think it probably is & would be convinced by a bottom marginal watermark line.

_________________
mobbor

Hi, Could anyone comment on these few stamps, they all seem to have individual flaws and I was wondering if anyone could put references to them please.

1 this is a single crown bottom marginal W/M and has a few things going on with it, top left corner missing, small white spot in lower right portion of crown, white spot under L of Australia, small white spot at the back of the emus head, there is what I would describe as a "teardrop" to the bottom of the T in the word Three also Halfpence is broken in several places and the lower left corner is rounded.


Next image is a single crown R/H marginal W/M and has a white spot on the Roo's rear also a small white spot above the right hand 1 of the 1/2d fraction.


next is a single crown R/H marginal W/M and has the crown missing at the top.


Many thanks in advance.
Ian

Much easier, thanks Ianval:-

1.17L56
2. 12R24
3. 9L30 listed in BW as 85(9)h.

_________________
mobbor

Greetings from a chilly S.E. Queensland...

Can anyone assist with plating this 2d Orange KGV, no discernible watermark line.

Distinctive compartment lines Right and Bottom frames.


Thank you

Many thanks Mobbor, your knowledge is appreciated.

ianval.

BXXI 11 Maybe

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

Thanks GUTTERS,

Will mark it down as a 'maybe'. BXXI 11 is the closest I have seen..

Regards

Is this B&W 129 m Perforation 14 and what is the value on that please?

MUH



Thank you for your info!

Peter

Catalogues, mint, at $450. The basic stamp catalogues at $250, so use the same multiplier (say 2:1 for ease of calculation) to determine a retail value. The stamp is not great as far as centering goes, so 'normal' retail would be about $125, making your stamp worth approx $220 to $250.

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

Good evening all, just recieved this in the post after a little bidding battle to $6, for my 1d red collection it is worth it.

White mark above the Y in Penny, wmk crown over A.



Thanks
Michael

Would like some help plating this 1½d Red Die 2 SM13½ watermark; Deformed inner margin by Roo tail, and scratch through shadelines by right wattle stem.



Thank you...

Hi Clemo,

Your stamp is 2R29. The two more flaws normally present, but I can't see on yours, are a shaved lower frame starting 4.5mm from SE corner and returning to normal with a sharp shoulder 2mm from SE corner; and a split entering the right projecting point on the lower frame from the right.

Cheers

Staples

Michael:

Nothing listed in Monk's monograph. Must be an EFO (one of those "tinshed" flaws).

I believe it is not a result of the placement of the watermark which lies to the upper left.

Notwithstanding the type of flaw, it is still a nice looking one.

_________________
------------------------------------------
Anyone else accumulating NWPI material for research?

Peter S writes:



Thank you Peter S for you answer, I am alltough a little confused.

In my CCCAS catalogue, this is IS # 97, 1926 -28 Small Multiple Watermark Perf 14 Issues and valuated at A$ 1200.00 MUH ( without the error)

Where does your estiamte of A$ fit.

The stamp pictured in the catalogoe looks to me the same (picture offset to the left frame) the same as my example!

Can you please comment on that?

Peter

Sorry, missed the MUH bit. It catalogues, MUH, at $1,500 (remember there has not been a new edition of the ACSC since 2007 for GV).

Centering is still the issue, of course. In normal circumstances a MUH retails for around $650 in reasonable condition. Yours is probably a $350 stamp (without variety). So, with variety, I would suggest a value of around $700.

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