Australian Commonwealth Official CTO stamps discussion

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 08:12

I suppose that there would have been a few CTO 1/- stamps with their watermarks the right way up - from the presentation sets dated April 1913.

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

Peter, have you seen an upright watermark stamp for sale?

As for the 'standard' CTO stamp, it is often poorly centred. A really well-centred stamp with good perfs is uncommon.

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 08:19

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......

'Standard' CTO from collector's packs. Were available in those packs up until the early 1940s.

Much less common postally used.

CTO 5/- Bridges are fetching $200-240, although I've seen a few on eBay go for less than $200 recently. Nice copies always get a little extra. I don't think the price of these, CTO or mint has changed much in the past twenty years.

There seems to be an awful lot of five bob bridges around.

Clive

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 01 Aug 2010 08:24

clive willingham wrote:I suppose that there would have been a few CTO 1/- stamps with their watermarks the right way up - from the presentation sets dated April 1913.

Price differential is; CTO with inverted WMK is $75, with upright WMK is $500.
Peter, have you seen an upright watermark stamp for sale?

As for the 'standard' CTO stamp, it is often poorly centred. A really well-centred stamp with good perfs is uncommon.

Clive

Clive, I don't remember seeing one. They must almost certainly exists though, otherwise would probably be unpriced in ACSC.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 08:38

Peter,

Clive, I don't remember seeing one. They must almost certainly exists though, otherwise would probably be unpriced in ACSC.

Me neither. That makes it one very rare stamp I would think.

I take your point about the ACSC reference, but I'm not by any means sure that their approach to and assessment of CTO stamps is all that it should be. As I never get tired of saying, that they generally price CTO roos at around twice the price of good used is an absolute joke. And they are hardly any better, in fact often worse, in respect of other CTO material.

Guru Glen, what say you, have you sighted an upright watermark CTO first watermark 1/-?

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 09:32

These are not easy to come by CTO. Full gum on these, too, although I'm soooooo tempted to wash it off.

Clive

librarianc · Post by **librarianc** » 01 Aug 2010 10:13

clive willingham wrote:
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......
'Standard' CTO from collector's packs. Were available in those packs up until the early 1940s.

Much less common postally used.

CTO 5/- Bridges are fetching $200-240, although I've seen a few on eBay go for less than $200 recently. Nice copies always get a little extra. I don't think the price of these, CTO or mint has changed much in the past twenty years.

There seems to be an awful lot of five bob bridges around.

Clive

Thank you Clive!

I'm not very good at determining CTO that isn't clear and after reading many threads here on Stampoards, I don't want to assume anything, if I can ask first. The condition of this one seems fairly rough, but I'll advise final price if I decide to jump in.

John A

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 10:26

John,

If this is up on e-Bay recent form suggests it will probably go for around the $175-200 mark. It is a bit rough.

Honestly, mate, for twenty, thirty or forty dollars more you will do a whole lot better by way of a better-centred stamp with good perfs. Buying one in this condition, I always think in a few years, (or weeks in my case) I'll be saying to myself 'why didn't I wait and pay the extra for a good quality stamp?' I wonder how much money I've wasted over the years not following my own advice!!

Glen would likely have something that would fit your bill if you are keen on getting hold of a copy (thinks: do I get a discount for touting Stevo?

).

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 01 Aug 2010 10:30

clive willingham wrote:
Guru Glen, what say you, have you sighted an upright watermark CTO first watermark 1/-?

Clive

I recall having an example once that I posted here.

I'll check my files later.

librarianc · Post by **librarianc** » 01 Aug 2010 10:36

clive willingham wrote:John,

If this is up on e-Bay recent form suggests it will probably go for around the $175-200 mark. It is a bit rough.

Honestly, mate, for twenty, thirty or forty dollars more you will do a whole lot better by way of a better-centred stamp with good perfs. Buying one in this condition, I always think in a few years, (or weeks in my case) I'll be saying to myself 'why didn't I wait and pay the extra for a good quality stamp?' I wonder how much money I've wasted over the years not following my own advice!!

Glen would likely have something that would fit your bill if you are keen on getting hold of a copy (thinks: do I get a discount for touting Stevo? ).

Clive

Absolutely correct, Clive........if I decide to get a "good" copy, Glen is on top of my list.

I was really looking for comments on if this was a CTO or not. Not being a clear cancel, I'm not close to being able to determine what it is.......CTO, rough postally used, old bottle cap (as Glen would say), etc. The condition and centering doesn't really appeal to me, unless it's under 3 figures, but then only MAYBE!!

andrew burke · Post by **andrew burke** » 01 Aug 2010 14:43

Here are some CTO stamps I found in a lot last week. I was very happy

The only one I am not sure about is the Die 1, George VI.

I am still happy with it even if it is not one.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 15:12

Andrew,

Nice stamps. The KGVI 3d looks okay to me.

These seem to have been included in collectors' packs up until the early 1940s, which is where this one comes from.

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 01 Aug 2010 15:23

clive willingham wrote:Andrew,

The KGVI 3d looks okay to me.

Yours does, Andrew's does not.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 15:41

Glen,

You are a harsh taskmaster.

Andrew, I'm sticking my neck out going against the Master, but I still think your stamp is kosher CTO. But then I'm often wrong, and he seldom is.

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 01 Aug 2010 15:56

Clive not remotely close IMHO.

For starters it does not read GPO - MELBOURNE VIC AUST as it MUST.

The KGVI small values CTO letters were sharp and crisp, (like the 5d) and the 3d is not.

Unless it has gum, a total non starter in my book.

You also do not get severely ripped out perfs on the KGVI era CTOs IME.

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 01 Aug 2010 16:28

librarianc wrote:
clive willingham wrote:John,

If this is up on e-Bay recent form suggests it will probably go for around the $175-200 mark. It is a bit rough.

Honestly, mate, for twenty, thirty or forty dollars more you will do a whole lot better by way of a better-centred stamp with good perfs. Buying one in this condition, I always think in a few years, (or weeks in my case) I'll be saying to myself 'why didn't I wait and pay the extra for a good quality stamp?' I wonder how much money I've wasted over the years not following my own advice!!

Glen would likely have something that would fit your bill if you are keen on getting hold of a copy (thinks: do I get a discount for touting Stevo? ).

Clive
Absolutely correct, Clive........if I decide to get a "good" copy, Glen is on top of my list.

I was really looking for comments on if this was a CTO or not. Not being a clear cancel, I'm not close to being able to determine what it is.......CTO, rough postally used, old bottle cap (as Glen would say), etc. The condition and centering doesn't really appeal to me, unless it's under 3 figures, but then only MAYBE!!

Johnh, of one thing you can be fairly certain, unless a cancel on a 5/- bridge covers a reasonable portion of the stamp and it is a quarter corner cancel, then is CTO. CTO is, by far the cheapest way of buying a Bridge. Postally used are hard to come by and attract something like a 100% premium, condition for condition. Nobody would apply a fake CTO cancel to a mint, even mint no gum, as it would devalue the stamp immediately.

The overwhelming supply of the 5/- bridge that made it 'into the wild' were via Specimen sets. 1932 was the depths of the Great Depression and not many people 'wasted' money on buying them. If 5/- postage was required (quite a sum), the standard high face definitive of the day (the Kangaroos) were what would mostly have been available at POs.

There is a thread around somewhere devoted to the 5/- Bridge. Lots of good images there.

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 01 Aug 2010 16:32

clive willingham wrote:Glen,

You are a harsh taskmaster.

Andrew, I'm sticking my neck out going against the Master, but I still think your stamp is kosher CTO. But then I'm often wrong, and he seldom is.

Clive

I'm afraid I am with Glen on this one.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 18:23

Peter,

I'm afraid I am with Glen on this one.

You are both probably quite right and I'm probably quite wrong.
While I still don't concede the postmark - any guesses at reading it if it isn't MELBOURNE GPO etc - I did think Glen's point about tatty perfs was well made, and perhaps more persuasive.

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 01 Aug 2010 18:41

Glen,

The KGVI small values CTO letters were sharp and crisp, (like the 5d) and the 3d is not.

Unless it has gum, a total non starter in my book.

You also do not get severely ripped out perfs on the KGVI era CTOs IME.

I agree but not always a crisp thin cancel and sometimes the perfs are a bit scruffy. You are the guru and I defer to your vast knowledge but I still think there is a similarity between the cancel on Andrew's stamp and the KGVI CTO cancel, like this one.

Andrew, is there gum on your stamp?

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 01 Aug 2010 18:47

1. It reads 'GPO - MELBOURNE VIC AUST' as it MUST.

2. The cds is thin lettered and crisp. Well inked, but still as it should look.

3. It does not have a large chunk ripped out at base

Andrew's has NONE of these basic requirements, and is NOT a PO CTO. .

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 02 Aug 2010 10:42

Glen,

Have you thought about issuing expertising certificates?

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 02 Aug 2010 10:53

clive willingham wrote:Glen,

Have you thought about issuing expertising certificates?

Clive

A minefield.

Say you bought a Roo for $1,000 or $10,000 off dealer "X" in Melbourne as "MUH" and sent it to me for a view. I have zero idea where it came from originally of course.

I say "faint trace of a hinge" or worse still - "re-gummed". And charge you $40 for my practised view.

You are delighted - and send the Cert to Dealer "X" - and angrily ask for your money back.

A few instances like that, and no-one in the trade will speak to me! Is it worth me risking a 30 year relationship with that or other dealers for a measly $40?

Why do you imagine that no established dealer here has EVER issued certs for 3rd party stamps?!

I warned Simon Dunkerley of precisely that end result, just as he embarked on issuing them large scale to all comers, just before his sad passing.

One MEL dealer alone had 400 stamps ready to pass on to him for Certs, just as he passed. They'd set a contract rate, and this would have helped Simon from his immediate money issues, but long term, was a looming disaster in my view.

Sadly many "Certificates" are not worth the paper they are written on. (No comment on Simon there whatever - he was very fussy - which was why he'd be stepping on landmines more than most.)

Take a read of this current scam re "Expert Certificates" -

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20627&p=1033102&e=1033102

andrew burke · Post by **andrew burke** » 02 Aug 2010 21:10

Thanks Glen, Clive,

Sorry Clive,

Glen is right there is no gum

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 02 Aug 2010 21:51

Andrew,

Nothing to be sorry for. Look how much I learned out of this!!

Just shows how much I don't know and how much there is to learn. And boy, am I enjoying the instruction from the Head Teacher.

I should think that there isn't anyone who couldn't learn something new about CTOs from these Stampboards threads. 8)

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 02 Aug 2010 22:17

Clive .. yes all the discussion on 1 thread is a great thing, and will assist many collectors in future.

Even if you google a simple term right now like -

'Australian CTO Stamps' -

We are the number one google match - right to this thread

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_e ... CTO+stamps

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 03 Aug 2010 00:37

I must say, this has been a wonderful addition to the already valuable and huge amount of information on CTOs. Kudos to everyone here for sharing. I posted these stamps awhile back and I believe we determined they were NOT CTOs.

But since the cancels are the same, or appear so, Im wondering if anyone recognizes the postmark type? FDC, Presentation, Special cancel of some sort? Or, some forgery froms a dealer or other? I note that the dates (what you can see) are VERY Fine script inside the cancel.

That kind of fired off some bells when comparing these to the 1924 presentation cancels shown here earlier. Anyway, as always, your opinions are much valued!

Dave

Post by **GlenStephens** » 03 Aug 2010 00:46

Someone playing around with a zinco it looks like. They messed up the 9d and had to do it twice.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 03 Aug 2010 01:15

Dave,

That 1937 NSW sesquicentenary set is as common as, you can pick up mint sets and blocks for next to nothing. But try and find a CTO set, now that's a challenge.

IMHO as hard to find as the 1936 South Australia and Cable sets. And speaking of hard to find CTOs, the 1940 AIF set is also very elusive.

Clive

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 03 Aug 2010 11:05

Well, I was afraid of that! Nice set there Clive! I have to say, I have NEVER until now, seen the NSW set CTOd! And just look at the ACSC value on the Cable set! A real example of "fill-in valuations (IMHO) How else could Anyone have come up with 10.00 for a full set??? I was FLOORED when I saw that! (Supply and demand?....Im miffed..)
Very Nice Set indeed Clive!
Dave
: )

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 03 Aug 2010 11:28

davpot wrote:Well, I was afraid of that! Nice set there Clive! I have to say, I have NEVER until now, seen the NSW set CTOd! And just look at the ACSC value on the Cable set! A real example of "fill-in valuations (IMHO) How else could Anyone have come up with 10.00 for a full set??? I was FLOORED when I saw that! (Supply and demand?....Im miffed..)
Very Nice Set indeed Clive!
Dave
: )

Dave, think of it this way. We know these sets are worth far more than catalogue, but a lot of others do not. Therein lies an opportunity.

See some in a dealers stock (especially in the USA) and you will likely be able to get them quite cheaply. I have seen US dealers calling them FU and pricing them accordingly. That is how I ened up with full gum, unhinged Officials for next to nothing.

Someone around here has been known to say words to the effect of "KNOWLEDGE IS POWER." This was never truer in the circumstance of offical Australian CTOs.

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 03 Aug 2010 11:37

davpot wrote:Well, I was afraid of that! Nice set there Clive! I have to say, I have NEVER until now, seen the NSW set CTOd! And just look at the ACSC value on the Cable set! A real example of "fill-in valuations (IMHO) How else could Anyone have come up with 10.00 for a full set??? I was FLOORED when I saw that! (Supply and demand?....Im miffed..)
Very Nice Set indeed Clive!
Dave
: )

You're absolutely right Dave, and there are also many of the KGVI era CTO issues which have been arbitrarily priced at $10.00 or less in the ACSC. Try finding a 1937 1/- lyrebird definitive, catalogued at $8.00!

I also suspect there are many dealers out there who don't understand the true worth of genuine CTOs. I still pick them up being sold as VFU, and amazingly, at FU prices!

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 03 Aug 2010 12:23

Thanks You Crew!

I keep hoping to hear from 'dimbulb' as I know he reads this thread. (That means YOU DIMBULB!!) Interesting story from him. (I suspect he wont mind) He was "back east" in the Baltimore area recently and managed to pick up 2 Very Nice AIF sets CTOd and 2 Very Nice NG ANZAC 1/-s!

These were all in the 15.00 range! Im hoping we can hear from him soon. Oddly enough I ran across 2 SA sets in the last month or so, but have NEVER seen the NSW and only once in 15 years, the Cable set CTOd. So I am suspecting that the SA set is tough...but NOT as TOUGH as the other later set mentioned.

Im just wondering if the archives records of sets sold would give ANY CLUE to the number of each set included in the Collector sets say between 1936 and 1944. Now I think THAT would be interesting if numbers could be calculated. Well, just some musings on collecting and studying these fascinating stamps!

Thank you Australia!

Your devoted fan!

Dave/Oregon

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 03 Aug 2010 12:46

You know, it may be that the scarcity of some Commems and even GVI definitives is for a similar reason to scarcity of low value First WMK Roos. People were probably buying Specimen sets for the OS values, the 5/- Bridge, the Die II and some other obsolete issues.

CTO, per se, was not what was being collected. It was the underlying stamps, which didn't appear in circulated mail very regularly (if at all). The 'common' (as in easily collected through the mail) issues were not kept (at least not as regularly as the hard to get issues) and many were lost over the years. The cable set would fit this pattern perfectly, since the face value was not high and would be relatively easy to collect.

Sound like a logical suggestion?

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 03 Aug 2010 14:10

David,

As you say, the AIF is hard to find CTO. And like all the other KGV and KGVI commemoratives, even when you do chance on them every other set is poorly centred. Could not agree more with you re ACSC 'pricing' of these.

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 03 Aug 2010 14:16

Peter,

Dave, think of it this way. We know these sets are worth far more than catalogue, but a lot of others do not. Therein lies an opportunity.

See some in a dealers stock (especially in the USA) and you will likely be able to get them quite cheaply. I have seen US dealers calling them FU and pricing them accordingly. That is how I ened up with full gum, unhinged Officials for next to nothing.

Someone around here has been known to say words to the effect of "KNOWLEDGE IS POWER." This was never truer in the circumstance of offical Australian CTOs.

Words of wisdom for we small band of CTO brothers-in-arms.

8)

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 03 Aug 2010 14:27

Rod,

You're absolutely right Dave, and there are also many of the KGVI era CTO issues which have been arbitrarily priced at $10.00 or less in the ACSC. Try finding a 1937 1/- lyrebird definitive, catalogued at $8.00!

So, so true. The first series of KGVI is of course extremely hard, but even the later issues are still very difficult to find.

I also suspect there are many dealers out there who don't understand the true worth of genuine CTOs. I still pick them up being sold as VFU, and amazingly, at FU prices!

Do you think we are doing ourselves a disservice by highlighting this?

But yes, again you are spot on. You find that a lot on eBay and although I know people have mixed feelings about buying there, I have picked up some amazing bargains on eBay.

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 03 Aug 2010 14:49

It is largely fashion.

20 years back MONOGRAMS were of no interest to anyone much.

So they sold for a bit more than the basic stamp.

I posted a while back that the £2 1913 with monogram below was cat in ACSC a few $1000 more than non monogram.

No collected them, so no-one cared. If you got 50% more for the Monogram one .. good on you, as it was dead stock otherwise.

Folks like Arthur Gray quietly hoovered them up, as he rightly deduced (like many of the CTO's) that they WERE quite scarce.

So we now have things like this below selling for $160,000 MORE than the underlying stamp at Auction .. not $2000 more as was the case not very long back.

Like the share-market .. if you pick a trend before others do .. you'll do very nicely. Arthur pocketed $7.15 million for being just a litttle ahead of the pack.

It is like my mantra in the past years re postally used blocks of 4. Anyone who listerned to me has trebled their dough, and the rises have not even started yet.

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 03 Aug 2010 15:01

Your next Stamp News article Glen.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 03 Aug 2010 18:17

Glen,

I have to ask, at my peril.

That photo of you holding the monogram two pounds roo at the Shreeves auction.

Have you had a tint, or is that golden colour just the natural aura you radiate to us lesser mortals?

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 03 Aug 2010 19:26

I bought a halo from Tandy, and it was a free side effect.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 03 Aug 2010 22:45

I bought a halo from Tandy, and it was a free side effect.

What, thought you needed a spare?

Post by **GlenStephens** » 03 Aug 2010 23:04

The same thing occurs with my tiara actually. 8)

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 03 Aug 2010 23:47

Back to the topic before I get into trouble.

Although we've been looking at the KGV and KGVI (and KEVIII) eras, where the glamour is, the CTO tradition extends into the 1970s.

Does anyone collect QE2 CTOs? These are from a 1965 collector's pack of Australia, Australian Antarctic Territory and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

As you can see, the cancel is the Melbourne Philatelic Bureau. Most of the stamps in the pack have selvedge attached. In 1966, for the first decimal collector's pack, the cancels had reverted to the Melbourne GPO cancel. Most of the stamps had selvedge attached.

The 40c Tasman is from a 1967 pack. No selvedge on any of these.

I think those first photogravure birds are among the best stamps Australia has produced. So are the navigators.

Clive

Post by **GlenStephens** » 03 Aug 2010 23:59

clive willingham wrote:Back to the topic before I get into trouble.

Although we've been looking at the KGV and KGVI (and KEVIII) eras, where the glamour is, the CTO tradition extends into the 1970s.

Does anyone collect QE2 CTOs? These are from a 1965 collector's pack of Australia, Australian Antarctic Territory and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

As you can see, the cancel is the Melbourne Philatelic Bureau. Most of the stamps in the pack have selvedge attached. In 1966, for the first decimal collector's pack, the cancels had reverted to the Melbourne GPO cancel. Most of the stamps had selvedge attached.

The 40c Tasman is from a 1967 pack. No selvedge on any of these.

I think those first photogravure birds are among the best stamps Australia has produced. So are the navigators.

Clive

I sold this recently quite cheaply .. full gum CTO - Plate "2" block.

Was curious HOW it got the CTO cancel.

traralgon3844 · Post by **traralgon3844** » 04 Aug 2010 00:08

I just bought this block in the U.K.

It too has the Melbourne CTO type cancel similar to Glens.

Perhaps they were used received and cancelled for bulk postage payments.

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 04 Aug 2010 07:33

GlenStephens wrote:
clive willingham wrote:Back to the topic before I get into trouble.

Although we've been looking at the KGV and KGVI (and KEVIII) eras, where the glamour is, the CTO tradition extends into the 1970s.

Does anyone collect QE2 CTOs? These are from a 1965 collector's pack of Australia, Australian Antarctic Territory and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

As you can see, the cancel is the Melbourne Philatelic Bureau. Most of the stamps in the pack have selvedge attached. In 1966, for the first decimal collector's pack, the cancels had reverted to the Melbourne GPO cancel. Most of the stamps had selvedge attached.

The 40c Tasman is from a 1967 pack. No selvedge on any of these.

I think those first photogravure birds are among the best stamps Australia has produced. So are the navigators.

Clive

I sold this recently quite cheaply .. full gum CTO - Plate "2" block.

Was curious HOW it got the CTO cancel.

Glen, that can't have been a Specimen set cancel. Only face different current stamps were included in sets by then and multiples weren't supplied. The sheets of uncut booklet panes were only available at the Philatelic Bureau, using up unneeded stamps.

I suggest someone got a nice cancel on the block at the time. Nice, because of the contemporary cancel. Even though philatelic, still scarce because most of these were purchased and retained as mint (especially plate numbers).

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 04 Aug 2010 08:59

Peter,

I agree, only a stamp from a collector's pack or presentation set should earn CTO status. However, we are considered by many to be very hardline in these matters.

The complication comes in with cancels such as those Glen and Traralgon have posted - they are clearly cancelled to order, although the term 'per favour' has come into use to distinguish these from the 'real deal'.

Whether we like it or not, out there a great many people use the term CTO to describe cancels such as those applied to the 5d blocks.

Adding to the confusion, Australia Post at one time used the expression CTO to describe stamps it cancelled for collectors, but long after the packs and sets were discontinued - for all I know they still use the term.

Above is the 5d from a collector's pack, with the date 20 May 1965 and cancelled at the Melbourne Philatelic Bureau.

Clive

plsllvn · Post by **plsllvn** » 04 Aug 2010 09:15

I have been following this discussion with great interest and would like to what members think about this block of 4 , it has a Philatelic Bureau Melbourne, First Day of Issue May 28 1963 cancel on it. Could this be a CTO or has it been soaked of a cover, there isn't any gum on the back?
Thanks
Paul

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 04 Aug 2010 09:17

Clive, it's pretty simple really. If it qualifies for ACSC Catalogue status it is CTO, anything else is per favour. That is my opinion, in any case.

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 04 Aug 2010 09:22

[quote="plsllvn"]I have been following this discussion with great interest and would like to what members think about this block of 4 , it has a Philatelic Bureau Melbourne, First Day of Issue May 28 1963 cancel on it. Could this be a CTO or has it been soaked of a cover, there isn't any gum on the back?
Thanks
Paul

Paul, at the time this stamp was issued it was not possible to get multiples of Specimen set items, they only came singly.

I suspect yours has either come from a soaked FDC or is a per favour cancel on first day of issue.

I have seen plenty of blocks of stamps from this era, with the PB cancel, from FDI...even with full gum. I suspect there may have been a fad to get new stamps, with FDI cancels, in blocks at that time.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 04 Aug 2010 09:45

Peter,

Clive, it's pretty simple really. If it qualifies for ACSC Catalogue status it is CTO, anything else is per favour. That is my opinion, in any case.

As I said, Peter, I agree. That doesn't alter the fact that the term CTO has a much wider use.

I perhaps didn't make myself clear - a common failing these days as I hurtle into my dotage. The confusion out there is obvious. Paul's post about his CTO block is good case in point, as for that matter was our Revered Leader's 5d green plate block and Traralgon's 5d QE2.

A few pages back on this thread, Rod posted a picture of the best block of 4 of the KGV 1d violet anyone is ever likely to see, complete with 'correct' CTO cancellation. But it can't, by 'ACSC catalogue' definition be CTO - I wonder if I should put a question mark here. Yet, if, horror of horrors, Rod split that block into four single stamps there wouldn't be a person on the planet who wouldn't agree that the stamps were CTO from a collector's pack. Same story with Traralgon's block.

And as for a fad in the 1950s and 1960s for CTO' blocks of 4 - yes, absolutely, there was such a fashion, as any amount of material still around bears witness. Very, very popular at the time. And they were invariably described as cancelled to order. Of course, in those days, such stamps were merely listed as used in Australia's foremost catalogue, as were 'pure' CTOs.

It is only in relatively recent years - perhaps as late as the 1990s (I no longer have my 1983 loose leaf ACSC) that the somewhat arbitrary catalogue distinction has been made between CTO and 'used' (including per favour), and that by just one (if authoritative) catalogue editor.

Just musing, mostly.

Clive