Moderator: Volunteer Moderator Team
Right click on ANY photo and simply take the url from PROPERTIES (IE) or VIEW IMAGE INFO (Firefox) and paste it here.clive willingham wrote:
I haven't learned how to copy pictures from previous postings
Peter, what's that about pots and kettles, and people in glasshouses????!!!!!Global Administrator wrote:
Uh, Oooh .. no stopping you now!
You mean there was a chance of stopping him before???
We were talking about you, dear Clive, not about me!clive willingham wrote:Peter,
Peter, what's that about pots and kettles, and people in glasshouses????!!!!!Global Administrator wrote:
Uh, Oooh .. no stopping you now!
You mean there was a chance of stopping him before???
Clive
Also the flat topped 3 cancel. A bargain in my opinion!mstary1 wrote:Here is the 4D Roo that just went for about $55.
Yes, sure is.Also the flat topped 3 cancel. A bargain in my opinion!
Interestingly, if you have a look at the photos of CTOs in the ACSC, you will see that they are displayed there (on a pair of Twopence Halfpenny Kangaroos from memory).Global Administrator wrote:I'd never heard of the flat top 3 other than on this board.
They certainly do look a lot less commonly seen .
Clive, I saw the same set (1st watermark) today, and commented to my wife that I should be allowed to buy them. You can imagine how that went down.clive willingham wrote: What do our CTO aficionados think - overpriced or worth every cent?
Clive
RodT wrote:
The ACSC catalogue value for these, if my maths is correct is $1300.00, with the last three accounting for the bulk of the price. 1/- $500, 2/- $150, 5/- $200.
Hmm... not sure I'm understanding you Glen. Add these catalogue values up:-Global Administrator wrote:RodT wrote:
The ACSC catalogue value for these, if my maths is correct is $1300.00, with the last three accounting for the bulk of the price. 1/- $500, 2/- $150, 5/- $200.
Sigh.
$1300 catalogue for THAT lot - really? It is nowhere near 4 figures even.
Tell your wife she is smarter than she looks.
So, wouldn't it have been easier all round for you to say you believe the catalogue price of $500 to be wrong. Here's the catalogue page for reference:-Global Administrator wrote:Swap over the number that says "$500" on your list, and insert the corrrect number "$75" in it's place.. and you will see why these ebay sellers mysteriously do not quote catalogue values for such things, and hope and pray you are the possible buyer.
Thanks for the lesson GlenGlobal Administrator wrote:No, the catalogue price is RIGHT. I'd put this down to "user error". 8)
Rod .. see the little "l" next to the price of 30w?
It IS there for a reason. It is not a flyspeck.
Turn the page.
There all will be revealed and unless the CTO on ebay is UPRIGHT watermark (which appear not to exist as outlined earlier on ths thread) you will finally agree (I hope .. it is a long lesson here!) that CTO is $75.
Or let me word this another way ... I'll sell you TEN CTO copies for $750 if you believe they are cat $5,000 as it appears.
See if the missus will go for THAT one.
See "bargains" are not restricted to ebay ... buy from Stevo at 15% of ACSC. Coff.
(Can someone remind why I do not sell on ebay .. I'd be a millionare by Xmas!)
...NOTE to Geoff Kellows - your catalogue here is bloody obtuse! Just say:- The devil is in the detail of those pesky footnotes.Thanks for the lesson Glen ...NOTE to Geoff Kellows - your catalogue here is bloody obtuse! Just say:-
CTO, wmk inverted $75
CTO, wmk upright $500
Yes agree it is a trap for new players.RodT wrote:
Thanks for the lesson Glen
CTO, wmk inverted $75
CTO, wmk upright $500
Clive, I have seen that date before (but I don't have one). I am certain they were for a Presentation set.clive willingham wrote:I think this is an oddity, but maybe I'm overlooking something simple, as is often the case.
A clear 15 April 1913 cancel. Most probably from a presentation set. Has anyone else got a copy of a first wmk CTO roo with this particular date?
Clive
Clive, arrived yesterday thanks very much.clive willingham wrote:Peter,
You advanced that theory re the 1/- inverted wmk just a little while ago. That, together with your point about the other first watermark CTOs all being upright watermark makes great good sense. Especially in the context of my theory that the upright wmk 1/- may in fact not even exist or, if it does, is one of the most elusive of all Australian Commonwealth stamps.
Just on that cancel of April 15, the others I have are April 24. Maybe there were two separate usages, for example the earlier date being for say UPU specimen sets and the slightly later date for presentation sets to assorted local bigwigs. Would make some sense because you would think the UPU sets would be done first.
The last values of the first wmk roos were not printed and ready for dustibution until 8 April, so 15 April is very likely the first CTO date to appear on a kangaroo and map stamp.
I don't think there is any doubt at all that the only date found on the stamps in first wmk collectors' sets is, as you say, 3 December 1913. Mind you, I've never heard it suggested otherwise.
Did that item arrive yet?
Clive
No, not May dates, April dates. We know there are two dates in April, the 15th and the 24th. This suggests two different 'runs' with the CTO cancellers, and I theorise the earlier one was for UPUU specimen sets just on the basis that the government would have needed to get them out quite fast, as required by UPU rules. The later date was more probably the one used for the presentation sets. Or that's my theory.May dates could co-incide with presentation sets of complete series to Federal Parliamentarians, since all values were by then issued. I must admit, I can't remeber whether the May date I have seen is 15th or 24th.
See? Told you I was going senile!clive willingham wrote:Peter,
No, not May dates, April dates.May dates could co-incide with presentation sets of complete series to Federal Parliamentarians, since all values were by then issued. I must admit, I can't remeber whether the May date I have seen is 15th or 24th.
Clive
And I've had the stamp for years.
Dave, inverted WMK is more common in some stamps than others. Where it is relatively common (still always rarer than WMK upright) then the chances of inverted CTOs existing is fairly good. Now, what I would really like to find is an inverted 4d Blue CTO!davpot wrote:Say, I was just wondering if one was an invert! I have this same pair Clive. I'll have to see if the invert is listed under CTO. I kind of think not, maybe one for Kellows update?
I love the variation in shades on this one. And You've got a Cool little pair there Clive. Odd how they could have gotten some inverts if the run of CTO cancelling was done over a short period. Very "cool" as they say.
Dave
Dave, it's an interesting question. When the authorities decided to include obsolete issues in the sets, in an effort to bolster sales, I presume that they canceled a supply that they considered sufficient for a period, ot that was available. The question is, did they cancel all available stocks and then include them in sets till exhausted? Or did they cancel new stocks, from held stocks (they certainly wouldn't have made new printings), on an as required basis?davpot wrote:Amen CTO Brother! Doses such an animal exist? Ive always ASSUMED that CTO cancellations were applied during a pretty narrow time range, which might favor a narrower print/watermark selection. Other possibilities?
Dave
Hercule Poiret is favourite TV viewing, let me guess?clive willingham wrote:
My theory is that there were probably four cancellers used for the intial run of collectors' packs, and that there were four people involved in applying the cancels. And the one that had in his (most likely male) hand the only canceller with the flat-topped '3' consistently applied it with more force than his oppos. And probably inked it more often and cleaned it less often.
And was a left-hander.
Clive
Never got past Sherlock, and that seems like a hundred years ago.Hercule Poiret is favourite TV viewing, let me guess?
I'll bet he was a redhead as well, and smoked Players.
And I'm not sure that in this ultra politically correct world you are even allowed to say or write 'Players'. If there's a knock on your door later tonight, it'll likely be the thought police. 
3000 sets? Breckon says 5000 (but less than half sold).3000 stamps in sheets of 120 is 250 or so sheets - say 60 cancels a sheet takes an hour or two a value. And only 13 vals needed, so 2 or 3 days work for 1 person.
And then they sold about 500 sets over the next 9 years, give or take, which is pretty close to the 1920s average.clive willingham wrote:Richard Breckon's terrific article (Gibbons Monthly August 2005) tells us some more useful information.
The original collectors' sets included the engraved 1d KGV.
The collectors' packs were prepared for distribution on 13 December 1913 but in fact only 2460 sets (slightly less than half the total of 5000) had been distributed to GPOs by August 1914.
So maybe the cancelling of the stamps was a doddle, as Glen says, compared to the vastly more time-consuming tasks of separating the stamps and assembling the packs.
And contrary to received wisdom, sales were at first quite brisk: in those first eight months 1604 sets had been sold. Compare this to the less than one a week - Australia-wide - during the mid 1920s.
Clive
! Interestingly enough, this was the weekend of our local club meeting. One of our members brought a Very Nice Davos binder with some Bright and lovely runs of mint/FU KGVs and roos and a whole run of very nice CDSs on various early issues. In pointing out the possible CTOs to him I saw he had the 1945? Newcastle set CTOd! and the 3d Mitchell CTOd. And a range of other nice material. Chris (dimbulb) was again nice enough to loan me his KGVI and Dues ACSC. So should be some interesting reading ahead. As Glen has often said "knowledge is power" (or was that Einstein?! LOL!) That's interesting. I can't even recall actually seeing CTO copies of the Newcastle and Mitchell sets - there are zillions of them mint, I think they were heavily bought for speculative purposes. But CTO I think are pretty scarce, even though the ACSC catalogues them at virtually peanut prices.In pointing out the possible CTOs to him I saw he had the 1945? Newcastle set CTOd! and the 3d Mitchell CTOd.
Some great research waiting to happen, Peter, that's for sure.Dave, it's an interesting question. When the authorities decided to include obsolete issues in the sets, in an effort to bolster sales, I presume that they canceled a supply that they considered sufficient for a period, ot that was available. The question is, did they cancel all available stocks and then include them in sets till exhausted? Or did they cancel new stocks, from held stocks (they certainly wouldn't have made new printings), on an as required basis?
I am inclined to the view that there was really only a single cancel applied to any individual stamp, as a general rule. Once the stocks were exhausted the stamp disappeared from the sets. There are probably exceptions to this, as there is in almost anything to do with beauracracy.
A close study of cancellation dates is certainly needed. I don't know if that research has been done.
If my hypothesis is true, then pretty much all officials (whether perforated OS or overprinted) should have the same date as those I showed earlier in this thread. That date should pretty much co-incide with the decision to include these items (which were on their way out anyway) in Specimen sets.
Clive, we know that the PO made a decision to include obsolete issues to boost sales and a subsequent (separate) decision to include officials (perforated and overprinted). I suggest the 1937 date represents the likely inclusion date. There may have been a shortage of 6d stamps in 1939 and they just found some in stock to augment CTO stocks.clive willingham wrote:Peter,
The dates are almost certainly the same, although whether ALL stamps of a particular denomination/watermark would be the same in ALL packs, well, I'm not sure about that.
As you would know only too well, we only get a complete date on a CTO about every fifty or more stamps, which is very frustrating.
My interest in the dates on the stamps I posted up is that they were being datestamped 1937 or 1939 so long after they became obsolete. The SMW six pence roo datestamped 1939 is most revealing because there had been three subsequent versions of a sixpence stamp since it had been 'withdrawn from service'. How obsolete did a stamp have to be before remaining stocks were destroyed?
Clive
Yes, that does seem to be the case, although it's a bit of a puzzle (to me at least) why ordinary definitive stamps, especially roos, which didn't have any regnal significance, weren't simply sold until stocks were exhausted.I suspect very few stamps were actually disposed of at that time. They probably just hung around in stock for quite a long time.
In 1939? Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
A powerful Google Custom Search Engine for JUST This Site is below
