Australian Commonwealth Official CTO stamps discussion

[Global Administrator]

As an aside, I remember reading in the ACSC that the 2 pound Kangaroo, although obsolete, could be obtained on application. A part sheet was purchased in 1949 (or thereabouts) and it was actually Small Multi WMK, long obsolete.

I do not doubt it.

Veteran dealer legend Ken Baker (99 years old and still going strong!) bought a half sheet of 60 of the £2 Small Multi mint Roo (a full pane with imprint) in 1961 - at £20 a stamp - from Robson Lowe's.

Ken recently left me his amazing correspondence file for posterity, and anyone reading his stamp dealing history can imagine there is some amazing material in there! From the long article I wrote on Ken's stamp life, in 2007 -

http://www.glenstephens.com/snjuly07.html

Stuart Hardy is still alive and well in Adelaide and I imagine still has the record part sheet of 36 x mint £2 Roos I sold him. If so it would almost certainly be the most valuable Australian individual stamp piece in existence.

My elderly mother bid on my behalf for the complete MUH pane of sixty £2 stamps at Robson Lowe Auctions for me in 1961.

She told me afterwards Robbie Lowe was: "very courteous, and even arranged for me a nice cup of tea and a front row seat in the sale room." I paid £1,200 for this pane of 60, which at £20 per MUH small multiple watermark £2 Roo was a good buy I have always thought.

I urged Mother not to exceed £1,500 so was very pleased with her novice bidding skills.

Today these stamps nice unmounted mint sell for about $A8,000 apiece. In fact an Imprint block of 4 sold for $A142,500 in the Arthur Gray auction.

Stuart Hardy chose not to buy the complete pane, but offered me £30 each for the lower portion of the multiple. I recall him saying a block of 36 (6x6) fitted very neatly on to his album page.

He was clever enough to select the lower block, bearing the Ash imprint on the selvedge. I feel sure he now wishes he'd spent the other £720 and bought them all!

To tell the truth, selling the balance at £30 each was not easy in the early 1960s. How prices have changed. I do recall selling a block of 12 to Dr. Les Abramovich

[PeterS]

Peter,

I suspect very few stamps were actually disposed of at that time. They probably just hung around in stock for quite a long time.

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.

Including five bob bridges and 6d engraved kookas to stimulate interest is one thing, but 6d brown perf OS roos? In 1939?

Whatever, it seem that the Post Office went to extraordinary lengths to cater for the stamp collector and potential stamp collector. For which all we CTO enthusiasts should be most grateful.

Clive

Clive, I guess the problem was that there was little point in continuing to issue superceded stamps, else why issue new stamps in the first place? Definitives became smaller and cheaper to produce as the George VI issues came into use. Depicting the monarch became the norm for definitives, from George V heads on and stayed that way for many years.

The OS issues were added to stimulate flagging sales. Imagine how slow sales might have been but for the OS issues (especially the Kingsford Smith), Bridge and Die II?

[Clive]

Peter,

The OS issues were added to stimulate flagging sales. Imagine how slow sales might have been but for the OS issues (especially the Kingsford Smith), Bridge and Die II?

Don't take this the wrong way, please, but is there some sort of evidence that the OS issues were added to stimulate flagging sales?

I ask because my assumption, rightly or wrongly, was that there was very little interest indeed in perf OS stamps generally, let alone the 'novelty' of CTOs

Clive

[PeterS]

Peter,

The OS issues were added to stimulate flagging sales. Imagine how slow sales might have been but for the OS issues (especially the Kingsford Smith), Bridge and Die II?

Don't take this the wrong way, please, but is there some sort of evidence that the OS issues were added to stimulate flagging sales?

I ask because my assumption, rightly or wrongly, was that there was very little interest indeed in perf OS stamps generally, let alone the 'novelty' of CTOs

Clive

Clive, can't remember off the top of my head where I read it (I will try and hunt it out). The fact remains, the OS issues were added some time after the decision to include obsolete issues. In fact, the OS issues were included at a time when the decision seems to have been close to having been made to phase out officials full stop.

Also, by adding the officials, the number of stamps in the sets increased whilst the price did not.

[plsllvn]

Here are a couple of stamps that appear to be CTO's, I could not find any reference in my ASCS regarding these as CTO's so hopefully someone could be kind enough to help confirm these are CTO's.
Thanks
Paul

[Clive]

Paul,

As far as I know, the Melbourne Olympic stamps were never included in Post Office collectors' sets, so I guess the answer to your question is 'no', they don't have CTO status.

Been postmarked with a very neat Brisbane cancel and would look well in a used collection. At the very least they seem to be per favour cancels but for reasons which will be clear enough from reading this thread, if a stamp doesn't derive from a collector's pack it can't by ACSC definition be CTO.

Unless, arguably, Miller brothers were involved. Which they were not, in this instance.

Clive

[PeterS]

I agree with Clive about the Olympics.

However, I am not sure what you are suggesting re. Miller Bros., Clive? Although they were able to procure sheets of CTOs, they were still all destined for Specimen sets, it's just that they were saving the postal clerks from having to tear up all those stamps themselves. I am sure they also got empty packs to insert the stamps into (well, the ones they actually did separate into singles, anyway).

[Clive]

Peter,

It's early in the morning, you need to stay loose, or it could be a long day.

Clive

[PeterS]

Peter,

It's early in the morning, you need to stay loose, or it could be a long day.

Clive

Is it morning already??? Where has the night gone???

[RodT]

Received a very generous gift today - my very first 1937 1/- lyrebird, CTO.

Thanks heaps Clive.

[Clive]

Thought this could be some use

It's from page 4-8 of the 1999 King George V ACSC. I think it shows the Melboune CTO cancels a little more clearly than the illustrations in the later editions.

Clive

[Clive]

Here's an oddity, or two.

The KGV 1d red engraved. Official date of issue, according to ACSC, was 9 December 1913, although the stamps were placed on sale at some post offices on 8 December 1913. They were a very late inclusion in the first collectors'/specimen sets prepared for release to the public on 15 December.

First oddity - these stamps with CTO postmark are dated six days earlier than the official release.

dead link removed

The KGV !d red engraved had two printings: a little over a million in November 1913, and about the same quantity again in February 1914.

We know that the post office was making slow progress preparing the collectors'/specimen sets late in 1913 and early in 1914. While they were painstakingly putting examples of each of the new stamps into sets, the first printing of the 1d engraved ran out, hence the second printing.

Second oddity - the 1d engraved thus comes cancelled with the original Melbourne CTO canceller, but with two different dates, one for the first printing and another for the second. I think this may be 17 March 1914, but not at all sure about that.

Does all of this make some sense or has compulsory voting short-circuited my ability to reason?

Clive

[PeterS]

Clive, I guess if the sets were being made up in anticipation of an on-sale date of around mid December 1913 (but probably later) then including the 1d Engraved in the initial set made sense.

however, I don't believe that both your stamps could come from a Specimen set. I would suggest one of the dates (certainly the 1914 in my opinion) is from some sort of Presentation set. This based on the fact that 5,000 Specimen sets (containing 1st. WMK) were made up at one time.

[Clive]

Peter,

Clive, I guess if the sets were being made up in anticipation of an on-sale date of around mid December 1913 (but probably later) then including the 1d Engraved in the initial set made sense.

It made sense to English-born Agar Wynne, then Postmaster-General and Charles Frazer's immediate successor. It was Wynne who determined and was adamant that the 'disloyal' Labour kangaroo and map stamp had to be replaced by stamps featuring the king's head, of which the 1d engraved was the first. In a poignant touch, Frazer died just a fortnight before the King's head appeared on a stamp.

however, I don't believe that both your stamps could come from a Specimen set. I would suggest one of the dates (certainly the 1914 in my opinion) is from some sort of Presentation set. This based on the fact that 5,000 Specimen sets (containing 1st. WMK) were made up at one time.

I'm not sure the evidence, sketchy as it is, necessarily supports that. As Richard Breckon tells us, a little less than half of those first watermark sets (2460) had been distributed to the GPOs by August 1914. One explanation could be that the process of making up the sets was slow, as indeed we might expect.

On the other hand I hope you are right about the second cancel being from a presentation set, although I would observe that it doesn't match any other known date for such sets.

Has anyone else got a copy of the 1d engraved with that 1914 cancel?

Clive

[davpot]

And the saga continues....! Very interesting postmarks Clive and Pete. Im wondering if the month on the second stamp is May based on the direction of the small stroke we can see? I suppose there could have been any number of presentations; perhaps not all documented (Oh Great!)
Dave

[amfhf1]

So went down to my local stamp store todat and told him i was looking for CTO think i found a few in his stock. Pity the two penny has a bad corner.

[davpot]

Nice find Ampf:
At least most of the value is in the 3d! Ununless you have a variety of course. This set brings up an interesting CTO sideline: It's interesting that this set is so available (CTO), and yet to find it postally used is almost an impossibilty! Very Small stocks of this stamp must have been held for actual use. And then Im assuming the stocks for government offices were exhausted almost immediately! Perhaps Clive or Pete can full us in? The almost total absence of postally used stamps boggles the mind (of a collector!)
Dave

[RodT]

Nice find Ampf:
At least most of the value is in the 3d! Ununless you have a variety of course. This set brings up an interesting CTO sideline: It's interesting that this set is so available (CTO), and yet to find it postally used is almost an impossibilty! Very Small stocks of this stamp must have been held for actual use. And then Im assuming the stocks for government offices were exhausted almost immediately! Perhaps Clive or Pete can full us in? The almost total absence of postally used stamps boggles the mind (of a collector!)
Dave

Interesting comment re postally used Dave.

I'm wondering if this one qualifies as CTO (no gum) or postally used?

[Clive]

Rod,

It does look like a CTO. Does it have gum?

Clive

[RodT]

Rod,

It does look like a CTO. Does it have gum?

Clive

No gum, and I'm a bit worried about the postmark, which is not one of the Melbourne CTO postmarks, and the date, which looks like 1939 (these were withdrawn from sale in 1933).

[Clive]

Dave,

At least most of the value is in the 3d! Unless you have a variety of course. This set brings up an interesting CTO sideline: It's interesting that this set is so available (CTO), and yet to find it postally used is almost an impossibilty! Very Small stocks of this stamp must have been held for actual use. And then Im assuming the stocks for government offices were exhausted almost immediately! Perhaps Clive or Pete can full us in? The almost total absence of postally used stamps boggles the mind (of a collector!)

You make a very good point. I think the same is also true of the Sydney Harbour Bridge 2d red and 3d blue OS. I reckon the vast majority of the Bridge and Kingsford Smith OS sets went into collectors' sets.

Genuine postally used would be quite scarce, I think. Maybe Glen can shed some light on this one way or t'other.

Clive

[Clive]

Rod,

No gum, and I'm a bit worried about the postmark, which is not one of the Melbourne CTO postmarks, and the date, which looks like 1939 (these were withdrawn from sale in 1933).

I think the 'AUST' appears on both a VIC AUST cancel as well as the Sydney cancels which Dave showed were legitimate CTO cancels in the 1940s and 50s like the 4½d below from a collector's pack, alongside your stamp.

As for the date, well this SMW has a 1939 cancel, too - see discussion with Peter on this page a few posts earlier. This stamp was replaced in 1932. Clearly the Post Office had no qualms about cancelling any long-obsolete stock on hand and bunging it into collectors' sets.

There is, I think, still a bit of work to do identifying and confirming the CTO cancels and dates.

Clive

[davpot]

You make a good point Clive. Maybe, eventually we can piece some of it together here on this board! I hope Mr Kellow is watching....
New item here. I found what I think is a retouch "right of queen's head" (her right or 'my right?) Its on a CTO to boot. At least Im right on this. What do you all think?
Dave

[PeterS]

Nice find Ampf:
At least most of the value is in the 3d! Ununless you have a variety of course. This set brings up an interesting CTO sideline: It's interesting that this set is so available (CTO), and yet to find it postally used is almost an impossibilty! Very Small stocks of this stamp must have been held for actual use. And then Im assuming the stocks for government offices were exhausted almost immediately! Perhaps Clive or Pete can full us in? The almost total absence of postally used stamps boggles the mind (of a collector!)
Dave

The Kingsford Smith officials were produced in quite small numbers. They were the subject of considerable speculation by 'investors', with the active connivance of some public servants. That was the reason for the 6d Airmail being placed on public sale.

It wasn't too long after the issue of the Kingsford Smith set that the decision was taken to discontinue official overprints and OS perfins. Postally used KS OS overprints are quite scarce.

[PeterS]

Rod,

It does look like a CTO. Does it have gum?

Clive

No gum, and I'm a bit worried about the postmark, which is not one of the Melbourne CTO postmarks, and the date, which looks like 1939 (these were withdrawn from sale in 1933).

I would have seriously doubted that there were any stocks of this stamp available in 1939 to cancel and include in Specimen sets. However, nobody would apply a dodgy cancel to a 3d KS, gum or no gum.

[Clive]

Peter,

I would have seriously doubted that there were any stocks of this stamp available in 1939 to cancel and include in Specimen sets. However, nobody would apply a dodgy cancel to a 3d KS, gum or no gum.

If that's the case, then how to explain what appears to be a 1939 cancel on Rod's stamp?

Or is the OS overprint itself dodgy?

Clive

[PeterS]

Peter,

I would have seriously doubted that there were any stocks of this stamp available in 1939 to cancel and include in Specimen sets. However, nobody would apply a dodgy cancel to a 3d KS, gum or no gum.

If that's the case, then how to explain what appears to be a 1939 cancel on Rod's stamp?

Or is the OS overprint itself dodgy?

Clive

No, the overprint looks OK to me. I can only guess that, after withdrawing the OS overprints and putting them away, the PO found them and decided to use up a few more.

I must admit to still having concerns with the cancel. But, as I said, what noodle brain would apply a fake cancel to that stamp??

Therefore, it must be correct and must be CTO. It certainly can't be postally used with a 1939 date or with that cancel.

[Clive]

Peter,

I must admit to still having concerns with the cancel. But, as I said, what noodle brain would apply a fake cancel to that stamp??

The same noodle brain, or his close relation, who applied this 1939 cancel to this SHB 5/-??

Clive

[PeterS]

Peter,

I must admit to still having concerns with the cancel. But, as I said, what noodle brain would apply a fake cancel to that stamp??

The same noodle brain, or his close relation, who applied this 1939 cancel to this SHB 5/-??

Clive

Clive, a genuine cancel and I would suggest a date slug error. Extremely unlikely that there were any 5/- Bridges available from Castlemaine PO in 1939 (unless the stamp was held by a company or some such thing).

[Clive]

Peter,

Clive, a genuine cancel and I would suggest a date slug error. Extremely unlikely that there were any 5/- Bridges available from Castlemaine PO in 1939 (unless the stamp was held by a company or some such thing).

I don't doubt that it's a genuine cancel, and a fine one too. Neither has it occurred to me that some punter just rocked up to Castlemaine post office in 1939 and bought it over the counter to put on a parcel or suchlike.

I don't think it's a date slug error - I recall on another thread someone recently posted up a SHB 5/- dated 1937. Maybe my stamp had developed rust and the owner was doing a salvage job, making the best of a bad lot by converting it from mint to used. But who can tell what the story is here, any more than we can with Rod's 3d OS Kingford Smith?

Back to CTOs for me before the Sheriff of Castlecrag cites me for straying off topic.

Clive

[RodT]

Wow, great discussion guys. I feel the jury may still be out on the status of the KS OS.

Hope the sheriff can weigh in with an opinion.

I've also been trying to decipher the lettering in the postmark beyond ther UST (AUST), which to me looks like the letters NE upside down in the opposite direction. The last letter could be part of an A.

If it is ...NE then I guess this disqualifies it as being CTO?

[Clive]

Rod,

If it is ...NE then I guess this disqualifies it as being CTO?

Well, see my previous comments but the NE could be part of SYDNEY? Which comes with the AUST as well and, as we know through Dave, is a CTO cancel used on KGVI collectors' pack stamps.

Clive

[davpot]

Speaking of "noodlebrains" This stamp was part of a nh set of CTOs I recently purchased. Im assuming some lazy person included it in a specimen set! This 9d is NH with a CTO cancel, but look at those perfs! Could this have happened in tearing up the sets? And then to have included the set in a folder? I just thought it was odd and food for speculation..eh?
Dave

[PeterS]

Dave,

The Macarthurs are relatively large stamps and the paper is fairly thin, very easy to see the watermark on those!). Poor perforations are relatively common on these. However, it would have been pretty poor form to include a stamp in that condition in a Specimen set. Perhaps the damage occurred later.

[Clive]

Spending some time trying to make sense and order out of my stamp stuff and I chanced on this advertisement (or part thereof) from the special supplement to the Gray Sale in the April 2007 Stamp News.

There it is, a first watermark 1/- CTO with upright watermark, priced at $475. A bargain.

Interestingly, from the scan the day appears to end in a '5', not a '3'. On that small clue I'm guessing it is another 15 April 1913 presentation cancel. At any rate, obviously not from the original collectors'/specimen sets.

Clive

[davpot]

Clive, Pete, Glen et al: I noticed a new thread under suggestions for the upcoming ACSC.

Has anyone given this some serious thought relative to CTOs or Specimens? Nice catch above Clive. Interesting on the date. I recently picked up a Presentation pack from 1958 and will share any interesting bits once I give it a gander!

Dave

Im hoping it isnt with problems....we'll see.

[GlenStephens]

Spending some time trying to make sense and order out of my stamp stuff and I chanced on this advertisement (or part thereof) from the special supplement to the Gray Sale in the April 2007 Stamp News.

There it is, a first watermark 1/- CTO with upright watermark, priced at $475. A bargain.

Interestingly, from the scan the day appears to end in a '5', not a '3'. On that small clue I'm guessing it is another 15 April 1913 presentation cancel. At any rate, obviously not from the original collectors'/specimen sets.

Clive

Wish I had most of those back in stock Clive.

And those prices would be VERRY ancient history!

Yes I felt sure I'd fairly recently had a CTO 1/- UPRIGHT. No idea who bought it, but a $1000+ stamp today for sure.

Glen

[Clive]

Dave,

Has anyone given this some serious thought relative to CTOs or Specimens?

Yes, but have long since begun to wonder if we'll see a new ACSC of any description in the foreseeable future. If Glen can't get answers it doesn't look at all promising.

In any case this thread, or something similar, is self-contained and the information freely available to anyone. I guess someone could bring it to the attention of the ACSC editors.

I recently picked up a Presentation pack from 1958 and will share any interesting bits once I give it a gander!

Now that will sure be an interesting and informative number! Where do you find these treasures, Dave? Anyway, really looking forward to hearing your 'report', hopefully with pictures.

Clive

[Clive]

Glen,

Yes I felt sure I'd fairly recently had a CTO 1/- UPRIGHT. No idea who bought it, but a $1000+ stamp today for sure.

Yes, and it looks to have been a really nice copy, too.

I think the date tends to support Peter's theory that the CTO stamps included in the original specimen sets were all printed on sheets inserted the wrong way round on the press.

And so we won't see an 'upright' dated 3 Dec 1913.

The example you had for sale most probably came from a presentation set and was printed at a different time and on paper that had been correctly positioned on the press.

Works for me, anyway.

Clive

[PeterS]

Before the advent of Kangaroos, the Australian Stamps used in Victoria included a unique design for the Postage Dues. This was a continuation of the pre-Federation design and only used in Victoria. All other States used the modified NSW designs.

Here is a 1/- value with the ubiquitous Melbourne CTO cancel. Presmably a Presentation set example.



This design later became the standard Commonwealth Postage Due, with AUSTRALIA substituted for VICTORIA.

[PeterS]

Glen,

Yes I felt sure I'd fairly recently had a CTO 1/- UPRIGHT. No idea who bought it, but a $1000+ stamp today for sure.

Yes, and it looks to have been a really nice copy, too.

I think the date tends to support Peter's theory that the CTO stamps included in the original specimen sets were all printed on sheets inserted the wrong way round on the press.

And so we won't see an 'upright' dated 3 Dec 1913.

The example you had for sale most probably came from a presentation set and was printed at a different time and on paper that had been correctly positioned on the press.

Works for me, anyway.

Clive

I agree. The numbers prepapred for Presentation purposes were a small fraction of those prepared for Specimen Sets.

I suggest that, in the right circumstances in a competitive auction, an upright WMK 1/- CTO would go for well in excess of $1,000. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see it reach double that.

Most recipients of Presentation sets probably didn't collect stamps and probably didn't look after them once presented.

[Clive]

Was leafing through an Alec Rosenblum's The Stamps of the Commonwealth of Australia - third edition, published in October 1928 (the last Rosenblum edition appeared in 1966).

Rosenblum devotes three pages to Cancelled to Order. And very informative, and at times intriguing, reading it is. Rather than summarise it I'll try to scan the relevant pages and post here some time during the day. But something here for all CTO lovers, IMHO.

Clive

[Clive]

Okay, here are those scanned pages from Rosenblum.

broken link removed

They've come out in readable fashion at my end but if anyone has any problems let me know and I'll try something else.

I find those first two paragraphs confusing in parts but they are essentially repeated in all subsequent Rosenblum editions up to 1966.

Clive

[PeterS]

Clive,

2 very interesting things to note.

1. He specifically refers to 2 x 1/- in the First WMK original issue, mentioning the WMK Inverted separately. So, presumably, there must be at least some WMK Upright stamps with Dec 3 13 cancel (unless it an assumption on his part).

2. The number of First WMK stamps, still with the Dec 3 13 date presumably, included in the 1928 sets.

[amfhf1]

Just got back from one of my local flea markets and allways on the look out for those nice ctos



Was very happy to get this colour is very deep npt tpp badly centered and perfs all good.

Now if it had a flat topped three lol.

[PeterS]

Just got back from one of my local flea markets and allways on the look out for those nice ctos



Was very happy to get this colour is very deep npt tpp badly centered and perfs all good.

Now if it had a flat topped three lol.

Nice stamp.

[davpot]

Nice Stamp Ampf: It is well centered and great color! is that some frame oddity on the right?
Clive: Thanks for the neat article! Yet a little more information. I kept seeing the 6d blue roo (3rd wmk) mentioned from time to time....interesting!
Dave

[PeterS]

I find those first two paragraphs confusing in parts but they are essentially repeated in all subsequent Rosenblum editions up to 1966.

Clive

Clive, just reread those paragraphs. What he was saying was that a full set (all values) was available, with CTO cancels, for 40/-. After protests (no doubt at the price) the PO decided to issue the sets we know of, with Specimen overprints, at a lower price.

[Clive]

Dave,

Clive: Thanks for the neat article! Yet a little more information. I kept seeing the 6d blue roo (3rd wmk) mentioned from time to time....interesting!

Like this one? I think there is a better example earlier in this thread, posted by Peter perhaps? This one actually looks like a straight die 2 which, according to ACSC, is non-existent. ACSC lists the CTO in die 2b, which is what I guess this one must be, but it sure doesn't have the readily obvious distinguishing characteristics of a 2b.

Why do you 'keep seeing it'?

Clive

[Clive]

Peter,

1. He specifically refers to 2 x 1/- in the First WMK original issue, mentioning the WMK Inverted separately. So, presumably, there must be at least some WMK Upright stamps with Dec 3 13 cancel (unless it an assumption on his part).

I don't see that follows from what Rosenblum wrote. As I read him, he is saying no more than that the 1/- exists in both upright and inverted form - the date of the inverted could come from any of the three dates he cites (which as we now know is in fact true of the 15 April date at least).

Especially given that he has both 3 December and 5 December dates!! Come on, hands up all those who have seen a 5 December cancel?

Much more upon which to ponder, but that will have to do for now.

Clive