Australian Commonwealth Official CTO stamps discussion

plsllvn · Post by **plsllvn** » 14 Jul 2010 11:01

I didn't think I had any CTO's but after reading this tread I had another look and found this 1 shilling Anzac, it looks like a CTO- can anyone offer an opinion on if it is ?
Thanks
Paul

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 14 Jul 2010 12:02

Paul: Thanks for contributing! I believe you have a CTO there, but....a LOT of foxing or Rust, or whatever you want to call it as well! If the gum is already removed you may be able to salvage that stamp. Such a pity with all that staining. Still, posting is how we often learn.
Dave

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 14 Jul 2010 12:21

clive willingham wrote:Peter,

For a 10/- (indeed, any value over 5/-) to be CTO (as opposed to per favour) indicates an error on someones part. We know it occurred when the decision was made to include OS stamps in packs, that is how the hi value bi-colours made a very temporary appearance (apart from the 10/- Third WMK which, for some unfathomable reason wasn't withdrawn along with the £1 and £2, which were). We do know the 10/- Robes was issued as a Specimen very early, well before the £1.
You are likely quite right.

My reasoning is that, according to the ACSC, the ten shillings robe was issued in April 1938. It was not until more than four years later, "about August 1942", that the stamp overprinted specimen was introduced into collectors' packs.

The stated Post Office policy was to include all current postage stamps in collectors' packs. So, for a period of more than four years, the ten shilling Robes was on issue. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch, to me at least, that some of these stamps may have been so included perhaps, as you say, by error or at least inconsistent with Post Office policy.

As to the cancellations, again, you may be quite right - I am not in a ditch on that aspect, although the cancel on the ten shillings, along with another copy I have, does to me look very similar to known CTO cancels. Another aspect is that if these stamps were in fact treated in the way I theorise, the cancels could still be CTO but not one of the three shown by ACSC. Doesn't do to be too dgmatic with these cancels, I'm discovering, especially after David Potts virtually 'sealed' his theory that Sydney provided some genuine CTOs in collectors' packs.

So much yet to learn.

Clive

Clive, I don't believe that anything over 5/- was ever included in Specimen sets, without an appropriate overprint, apart from the error with the 10/-, £1 and £2 OS Kangaroos. This would mean that the Robes did not appear, complete, until the £1 Robes Specimen nearly 10 years after it was issued. Quite why the 10/- appeared so much later than issue, but much earlier than the £1 is one of those mysteries.

The fact that the £1 Robes appeared so late is the reason it is so scarce, being fairly quickly replaced by the Arms issue.

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 14 Jul 2010 14:58

Here's something a little earlier: 2 of my 1d reds NG and a 2 1/2d. The reds appear to be die 2 (I think). Clive, you asked for this so here they are.
Dave

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 14 Jul 2010 15:07

And here are some others. I think the 2d is a die 1. I personally like this 1d a bit better.
Dave

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 14 Jul 2010 15:53

Peter,

Clive, I don't believe that anything over 5/- was ever included in Specimen sets, without an appropriate overprint, apart from the error with the 10/-, £1 and £2 OS Kangaroos. This would mean that the Robes did not appear, complete, until the £1 Robes Specimen nearly 10 years after it was issued. Quite why the 10/- appeared so much later than issue, but much earlier than the £1 is one of those mysteries.

The £1 robes in Specimen form appeared 5½ years after issue, in April 1944, at least according to ACSC.

Both the 10/- and the £1 Robes were issued in 1938 (April and November respectively). Richard Breckon says the £1 and £2 C of A wmk roo Specimens weren't included into collectors' packs until mid-1942 (shortly before the 10/- Robes specimen), some years after they had been 'replaced' by the Robes!!

Thus there is a window of four-plus years from the issue of the Robes to the introduction of high value specimen overprints, the C of A roos. If I bought a pack in that four-years window, say in 1940, would there have been a ten shillings value in there, and if not why not? But if there was a ten bob, what kind would it have been - a specimen overprint small multi or third wmk roo, or a CTO Robes? Or a third watermark 10/- punctured OS?

Again it is I think worth noting that collation of collectors' packs in that era was done in each State - it wasn't until the late 1940s or early 1950s that the process was centralised in Melbourne. Therefore there was obvious potential for inconsistencies across States in the make-up of collectors' packs.

Another factor is that there was a mini-boom in the sales of collectors' packs (6720 sets in 1942-3 and orders for a further 3000 could not be met) chiefly because the 5/- Bridge was still included. That spelled the end of the 'old' 68 stamp collectors' sets, and from April 1944, coinciding with the Specimen overprinted £1 Robes, the new 'current issues only' packs were released, at the reduced price of 10/-.

It occurs to me that during a time when there was something of a rush on collectors' packs, demand for which was significantly unmet, there could easily have been some ad hoccery by postal officers in the various States especially as stocks of specimen overprinted C of As became depleted or simply ran out. How big a stretch is it to suggest that a postal worker compiling a pack may have plonked a CTO on a 10/- Robes (to go with the 5/- Robes) simply because he/she had no ten bob specimen roos on hand?

All conjecture, true. But stranger things happen at sea.

8)

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 14 Jul 2010 16:01

David,

Thanks so much for sharing those. That's one glorious CTO 1d roo. You may just have the best example in captivity. Wish it was mine.

Did you notice that in the first of the 1d roo CTOs you posted, there is that little aberration of two different kinds of '3' on the cancel - the 3 of the date of the month has a flat top and the 3 of the year has a rounded top? This has been commented on before, but it still intrigues me as to why the PO would make a canceller with two different 3s, and perhaps other characters.

Clive

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 14 Jul 2010 16:25

clive willingham wrote:David,

Thanks so much for sharing those. That's one glorious CTO 1d roo. You may just have the best example in captivity. Wish it was mine.

Did you notice that in the first of the 1d roo CTOs you posted, there is that little aberration of two different kinds of '3' on the cancel - the 3 of the date of the month has a flat top and the 3 of the year has a rounded top? This has been commented on before, but it still intrigues me as to why the PO would make a canceller with two different 3s, and perhaps other characters.

Clive

In my experience the flat top 3 is much scarcer, but is too consistent to be an error in application of the canceller itself.

Just bye the bye, I also think this is where the suggestion that there was a Dec 6 13 cancel. The flat top 3 can look like an incompletely formed 6. However, apart from Presentation sets, I think it is pretty clear all the First WMK Specimen sets, for sale to the public, were created at the one time. Well, with the one date anyway. Just imagine the time it took to handcancel 5,000 sets of stamps up to 5/- and also 5,000 hand applied Specimen cancels to the 3 top values!

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 14 Jul 2010 17:59

Paul,

Welcome on board this conversation.

You have a really nice 1/- ANZAC there, very well centred and nice perfs. I agree with David that it seems to be CTO.

On my screen the toning is a worry. Regardless of whether or not it has gum I'd be giving the stamp a long hot bath with a couple of drops of Palmolive Green dishwashing liquid. Some advise not to hot bath chalk-surfaced paper but I've never experienced any damage being caused to these stamps from the hot tub routine.

There are liquids specifically designed to remove toning but if it won't come off with a hot bath it's probably too far gone.

Clive

plsllvn · Post by **plsllvn** » 15 Jul 2010 01:56

clive willingham wrote:Paul,

Welcome on board this conversation.

You have a really nice 1/- ANZAC there, very well centred and nice perfs. I agree with David that it seems to be CTO.

On my screen the toning is a worry. Regardless of whether or not it has gum I'd be giving the stamp a long hot bath with a couple of drops of Palmolive Green dishwashing liquid. Some advise not to hot bath chalk-surfaced paper but I've never experienced any damage being caused to these stamps from the hot tub routine.

There are liquids specifically designed to remove toning but if it won't come off with a hot bath it's probably too far gone.

Clive

Clive/ david b. potts
Thanks for your replies and suggestions. I did give it a bath in boiling kettle water with a little added dish soap ( didn't have any Palmolive, but it was green) and just wanted to show everyone the results.There is still some brown remaining but I was very happy with the result. maybe it will need a second wash? Could this have been nicotine stains rather than foxing/toning, the back of the stamp was spotless?
Thanks ,again
Paul

Global Administrator · Post by **Global Administrator** » 15 Jul 2010 02:32

plsllvn wrote:
I didn't think I had any CTO's but after reading this tread I had another look and found this 1 shilling Anzac, it looks like a CTO - can anyone offer an opinion on if it is ?

Thanks

Paul

This stamp has been about THE same retail used as mint for 80 years, so 100s of heavy hinged or toned ones have been "whacked" across corner with a bottle top or a friendly postmaster etc.

It I had to bet I'd say that was NOT from a Specimen pack.

Kainnikanada · Post by **Kainnikanada** » 15 Jul 2010 03:50

plsllvn wrote:
Thanks for your replies and suggestions. I did give it a bath in boiling kettle water with a little added dish soap ( didn't have any Palmolive, but it was green) and just wanted to show everyone the results.There is still some brown remaining but I was very happy with the result. maybe it will need a second wash? Could this have been nicotine stains rather than foxing/toning, the back of the stamp was spotless?
Thanks ,again
Paul

Nice work Paul! What brand of dishwashing soap?

Now I just have to find 100% more spare time to soak many of my used NWPI stamps - make them looking spotless (foxless)?

Global Administrator · Post by **Global Administrator** » 15 Jul 2010 04:16

plsllvn - in MOST cases boiling hot water from a kettle and nothing else improves them out of sight.

The brown seen here is often light surface mould, and the boiling water of course kills it. Simple chemistry.

It often is just gum from old hinges and "trail dust" over 100 years. Hot water removes it all. Any detergent or bleach of course removes the "size" from the paper, and it goes very limp in many cases affecting value. And often changes colours - minor to major.

In my experience pure H2O is all that is needed in most cases.

Anyway, back to topic please which is about CTO stamps!

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 15 Jul 2010 04:57

Thanks Glen for the clear, lucid advice on cleaning foxed stamps! the bit about the water only is very interesting. I have a 10/- CofA Specimen that is in really bad shape! Im hoping of course......will give it a go!
And Paul, Nice Job on the Anzac cleanup!
PS: please call me Dave, "david. b. potts" sounds a bit "over the top" for me!
And Please keep sharing those pics and Thoughts!
Dave

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 25 Jul 2010 19:43

I have previously shown this stamp, a die II that can/should only exist CTO (GPO Melbourne), apart from a few that exist mint for reasons of PO error or sale from the archives.

This cancel reads EALTH, part of the word COMMONWEALTH it seems. I have come across another apparantly CTO stamp with the same cancel. Still have no idea where it originates.

The existence of this cancel would seem to indicate it wasn't just the Specimen cancels (done in error in the first place, the stamps being subsequently withdrawn and then reinstated to the Specimen sets) that got the treatment.

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 26 Jul 2010 01:13

Peter: Very interesting. Im assuming both stamps are OG. If so, then there is certainly an interesting (Presentation Story?) explanation. I would think pretty unique usage in both cases, but (to my mind)especially so for the KGV Die II! Another one! Neat stuff!
Dave

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 26 Jul 2010 05:27

Dave, neither have gum. Not uncommon on those as the gum didn't always age very well. Alternatively, but unlikely in my mind, they were postally used.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 27 Jul 2010 05:55

Some more KGV CTO stamps -

A 1929 Air Mail Service 3d, type B, not so easy to find really well centred

And a 1934 Victoria Centenary 1/- perf 11½, also not easy to come by well centred.

Super stamps, much scarcer than mint unhinged but less than half the price. I know it's all about supply and demand, but ............

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 27 Jul 2010 06:52

Peter, Dave, Rod and all,

I've been meaning to come back that original Melbourne CTO cancel, the one best known for being the 'roo CTO cancel', and its use on stamps other than the roos and Victoria stamps.

It's curious that it wasn't used on the 1913 KGV 1d red engraved issue, or the 6d engraved kooka of 1914.

Yet as has been pointed out, the 'roo CTO cancel' re-appears on the 1915 KGV heads. I have copies of the ½d green, the 4d orange and the 5d chestnut, all issued early in 1915 and replacing their roo counterparts. For example -

Two questions come to mind. Has anyone seen the 'roo CTO cancel' on a KGV 1914 1d red (not the engraved issue, the 1d red)?

And has anyone seen a stamp issued after 1915 with the 'roo CTO cancel'?

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 27 Jul 2010 17:59

Whoops, another senior's moment. I wrote earlier

It's curious that it wasn't used on the 1913 KGV 1d red engraved issue, or the 6d engraved kooka of 1914.

Of course the Melbourne cancel was used on the 1d engraveds.

Apologies for the brain fart.

This example is clearly postmarked 1914. So why wasn't the same cancel used on the 6d engraved claret kooka or, as far as we know, the KGV 1d red typo stamps?

Clive

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 28 Jul 2010 00:41

Hi to you all:
Maybe its just my eyes, but the spacing between the lettering on the 1d engraved and the 4d yellow above appears inconsistent. I see what appears like "odd" spacing on the 4d! Is that odd or what? Im also wondering if the Aussie Postal Archive records are available for research. (online?...I would be surprised!) But surely records do exist that MIGHT clarify some of our questions.
Just a thought for our OZ friends on the list...

Dave

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 28 Jul 2010 16:27

I just recently came upon a borrowed KGV ACSC volume thanks to the generosity of dimbulb (fellow member of our local stamp club) and I was really surprised at the variety of CTO values given for the 1st set of KGVs. Given the fact that for me, they were very difficult to find and some more than others, the assigned values didnt seem to reflect this apparent scarcity. A dealer in Australia recently sent me the first nice 4.5d value CTO from the set. Not only this, but the right value tablet has a variety to boot, and for free....took me years to find this sucker, so I wanted to share a pic with you all.

Dave

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 28 Jul 2010 16:56

Dave,

Another lovely stamp. Very uncommon, I'd say - you picked up a treasure there. Wish it was mine.

The current ACSC (2007) catalogues the stamp in CTO at $20 dollars, compared with $10 for a good used example. A total joke.

Clive

mstary1 · Post by **mstary1** » 30 Jul 2010 22:10

Nice thread.

I take it this pair of 1D roos are CTO?

Cheers.
Mark.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 30 Jul 2010 22:51

Mark,

Now that's a showstopper!!!

They sure are collector's pack CTO. I've never seen them CTO in pair before. A super item.

Maybe Glen would care to comment on rarity and maybe value.

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 30 Jul 2010 23:50

1913 CTO PAIRS are certainly unusual.

I sold the 1913 SPECIMENS in pairs last year.

Whilst they are exactly as rare as the 1d pair, I suspect someone paid a tiny bit more for these!

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 31 Jul 2010 06:53

clive willingham wrote:Mark,

Now that's a showstopper!!!

They sure are collector's pack CTO. I've never seen them CTO in pair before. A super item.

Maybe Glen would care to comment on rarity and maybe value.

Clive

They also have the flat topped 3 in 'DE 3', just to add to the rarity.

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 31 Jul 2010 06:55

Glen, I can't remember but were there multiples of the First WMK Specimens sold in Archives sales of the 1980s?

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 31 Jul 2010 08:23

Peter,

Glen, I can't remember but were there multiples of the First WMK Specimens sold in Archives sales of the 1980s?

There sure were, in the first sale by tender of 1987.

Lot 116 was -

Values to 2/- cto, mostly in large blocks, comprising ½d (6), 1d (30), 2d (26), 2½d (56), 3d (54, including 13 die 2), 4d (27), 6d (42), 2/- (17). Also 1d mint (20) and 5d mint (3).

(Estimate for the 281 stamps was $2100).

A note states "the cancelled-to-order material in the archives nearly always has a Brisbane datestamp instead of the usual Melbourne CDS." This is borne out by the small number of illustrations, although a featured 6d has the Melbourne cancel.

There were no CTO first watermarks for sale in the second archives tender.

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 31 Jul 2010 10:26

The archive sales had a few trashy looking blocks of the higher values too.

I owned this and the £1 in matching blocks for a while.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 31 Jul 2010 10:30

I also owned a very large CTO block ex Archives of the 6d Blue CTO, that had the "Retouched E".

As this single shows, a few of them must have been made in CTO -

Post by **GlenStephens** » 31 Jul 2010 10:48

And this gem sold at Gray for less than $A1,000 all up.

Just shows how fast the market has moved on both blocks and CTO's.

It would EASILY get $2000+ today.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 31 Jul 2010 11:12

Some unusual dates occur with the crisp cds CTO cancel.

This pair above ex Gray had a curious INVERTED and uncharacteristically blurry strike of - AP 24 - 13 - and sold in 2007 for $A6,375.

I put a similar (but superior!) one into stock this month at a shamefully low price, that has the identical cancel. Can't say I have noticed that date on any other 1913 CTO's. Has anyone else?

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 31 Jul 2010 11:15

Glen,

I also owned a very large CTO block of the 6d Blue CTO that had the "Retouched E".

As this single shows, a few of them must have been made in CTO -

That 6d with the retouched 'E' was actually illustrated in the February 1987 APO Archives sale by tender catalogue. Had an estimate of $350.

Clive

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 31 Jul 2010 12:28

A little off topic, but does anyone have listings of what was auctioned at the two APO Archives sales?

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 31 Jul 2010 12:35

Glen,

Some unusual dates occur with the crisp cds CTO cancel.

This pair above ex Gray had a curious INVERTED and uncharacteristically blurry strike of - AP 24 - 13 - and sold in 2007 for $A6,375.

I put a similar (but superior!) one into stock this month at a shamefully low price, that has the identical cancel. Can't say I have noticed that date on any other 1913 CTO's. Has anyone else?

Yes, haven't we had this conversation before? The April 1913 cancellation seems to have been used for the presentation sets given to members of parliament and other bigwigs.

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 31 Jul 2010 12:36

I have both AP catalogues and both PR lists.

Collector items in their own right.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 31 Jul 2010 12:39

Rod,

A little off topic, but does anyone have listings of what was auctioned at the two APO Archives sales?

I've still got both catalogues - is there any particular info you are after?

Clive

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 31 Jul 2010 22:14

clive willingham wrote:Rod,

A little off topic, but does anyone have listings of what was auctioned at the two APO Archives sales?
I've still got both catalogues - is there any particular info you are after?

Clive

Just that I've never seen a list / images of what was auctioned off - possibly would make another great thread.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 00:21

Rod,

I'll have a go at scanning some of the pages tomorrow, see if they scrub up well enough to post here. If not, I'll mail you photocopies if you would like.

Clive

Kainnikanada · Post by **Kainnikanada** » 01 Aug 2010 00:34

clive willingham wrote:Rod,

I'll have a go at scanning some of the pages tomorrow, see if they scrub up well enough to post here. If not, I'll mail you photocopies if you would like.

Clive

Clive,

I too, have both catalogues. Should you have issues with the scanning I might be able to help.

Rod

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 00:38

This may be okay.

More?

And Rod, thanks for the offer of help.

Clive

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 01 Aug 2010 01:06

Wow! Great information and pics! Sorry I missed that sale!

Beautiful material!
Dave

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 01:25

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 01:27

And that's it for the roo CTOs.

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 01 Aug 2010 02:46

Don't forget to post the PRICES they got!

amfhf1 · Post by **amfhf1** » 01 Aug 2010 04:11

Ok i can not say how much I appreciate this place. In a short period of time i have learned that this is a CTO and that the the of cancellation and cancellation date helps prove it. However this one is watermark upside down. Does that significantly add to the value ?

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 01 Aug 2010 07:57

Perversely, the inverted wmk 1/-, CTO, is the norm. The WMIK upright, CTO, is a very scarce beastie. The opposite is true for postally used, where inverted WMK is scarce and upright WMK is the norm.

All an accident of picking out the sheets to CTO in 1913.

Price differential is; CTO with inverted WMK is $75, with upright WMK is $500.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 07:58

Ok i can not say how much I appreciate this place. In a short period of time i have learned that this is a CTO and that the the of cancellation and cancellation date helps prove it. However this one is watermark upside down. Does that significantly add to the value?

No, the inverted watermark doesn't add to the value of a CTO 1/-. The reason is that virtually all CTO 1/- stamps were printed with inverted watermarks. It's one of those quirks, but a CTO that isn't inverted watermark would be very valuable - can't recall ever seeing one offered for sale.

Another quirk is that a postally used 1/- first watermark with inverted watermark is worth far more than the equivalent CTO stamp.

In other words, inverted CTOs are the norm; CTOs with watermark the right way up are virtually non-existent (perhaps don't exist); and postally used inverted watermarks are uncommon and worth much more than a CTO stamp.

Whoops, Peter's answer crossed in the mail with mine.

Clive

librarianc · Post by **librarianc** » 01 Aug 2010 08:04

Recently saw the following stamp at auction:

Is this a CTO cancel, or contrived cancel? Anyone care to place a value on this copy? Sorry, I don't have the back image......

John A