Thank you Lundy
. That catalogue/reference information is helpful. The Robson Lowe information on numbers overprinted (1906 issue), and the comment about philatelic demand for the stamps, do help us "understand" the philatelic significance of that first issue. My 2018 Stanley Gibbons Commonwealth and British Empire Stamps 1840–1970
also states the date of issue as 9 Sep. 1906, and adds the footnote
Some thoughts about catalogue values
2018 edition of SG 1840-1970 wrote:
Supplies of Nos. 1/6 were exhausted by March 1907 and the stamps of CEYLON were used until 1909.
The prices/values listed in the Robson Lowe and Murray Payne sources are less objective, of course, and time-dependent. They reflect philatelic market conditions at the time of publication. Lundy
, could you please tell us the publication years of your Robson Lowe and Murray Payne sources? That would help put their lists of prices/values in perspective.
Such lists typically involve an element of commercial interest — "these are the prices at which I would sell the stamps", or more likely, "these are the prices I use as selling guidelines, and I will offer to sell at 10% discount, as an incentive to the potential buyer" (unstated positions, naturally). The other side of the coin is the tacit "if I were to buy these stamps, I would offer a standard percentage of these values as my buying price". The "standard percentage" for buying price is typically undisclosed ("commercial in confidence"), but might
be in the range 25%-50%. Any informed comments on that?
When stamps are auctioned, we believe that "prices realised" are fairly good indicators of market value, and if prices realised reach "full catalogue value" or higher, this is regarded as indicating a very "good" result. It also is taken as evidence that the next issue of the catalogue should have its values adjusted upwards accordingly.
These comments are not intended as negative criticism. Rather, they are realistic commentary on the unwritten and usually unstated rules of commercial philately.