Richard, I was a major buyer at Chadwick, and the biggest buyer at Gartner (W.A.).capetriangle wrote:Certainly, I noticed that shade during the auction but had not really planned on adding to the earlier issues in the collection. I did think it was going reasonably during the hammering-down but remembered seeing "chocolate" shades in Frank Chadwick's exhibits (and no-where else) in the early 1970s as supercharged red-browns, rather than this one which may be a supercharged grey-brown. So this one may not actually be the "chocolate" shade as I understand it.Rod Perry wrote:As for most auctions, amongst the high results, there was plenty of value for money elsewhere at Besançon, and even some great value unsold lots.
My overview (and that for Chartwell ) will appear in July/August Australasian Stamp News.
Would you agree, Richard, this was one of the better value for money lots yesterday? :
Hammer just 800CHF.
1855 (Jan): 1 s. very deep brown "chocolate" shade, a fine used example with good margins all round and extraordinary depth of colour, cancelled by mute obliterator in black. Provenance: Collection Lars T. Amundsen, SG, London, 6-8 Dec 1967, lot 622.
I've long been puzzled why this rare and highly distinctive "chocolate" shade has not been catalogued by S.G.
Any idea why that should be so, Richard?
Unlike the rare "Salmon", it doesn't so much as require a certificate!
However, it is completely unfair to make a shade classification without actually seeing the stamp.
There was one mistake that I noticed in the WA section of the catalogue that being the "tilted frame" which was incorrectly identified. I pointed it out to them prior to the sale but no mention was made by the auctioneer.
(A large portion of those purchases ended up with the infamous John du Pont.)
I may have bought Chadwick's "chocolates" ? I have my respective original auction catalogues, and will dig them out for review.
I recall seeing perhaps a half dozen "chocolates" (about the same number of "salmons" seen over several decades), including at least one unused.
I'm reasonably confident the "chocolates" are a distinct, obviously tiny printing.
I rate the example featured above, ex Amundsen, one of the fussiest Classic-era philatelists ever, as one of the buys of Besançon.
I'm not surprised an error in classifying the "Tilted frame" occurred. I find it one of the most confusing items of the Australian Colonies, and question ought it be listed?