Australian Commonwealth Official CTO stamps discussion

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 20:33

1½d Canberra

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 20:48

3d Kookaburra

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 21:11

3d Airmail. Type A (top row), Type B (bottom row - wider design)

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 21:26

1½d Swan

Global Administrator · Post by **Global Administrator** » 11 Jul 2010 21:30

You certainly have an eye for gem quality Rod.

If you lived up here maybe I could entice you over to sort my stock!

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 21:42

Global Administrator wrote:You certainly have an eye for gem quality Rod.

If you lived up here maybe I could entice you over to sort my stock!

Wow! That would be better than winning tattslotto!

But how on earth would you put up with me for 10 years!

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 22:00

1½d and 3d Sturt

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 22:17

2d and 3d Kingsford Smith

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 22:33

6d Kingsford Smith

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 22:40

1/- Lyrebird

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 22:53

Sydney Harbour Bridge Set

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 23:15

Sydney Harbour Bridge OS

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 23:25

6d Kookaburra

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 11 Jul 2010 23:59

Macarthur Set

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 12 Jul 2010 00:07

I don't believe the 2d Dark Hills exists CTO, but I couldn't resist showing this instead.

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 12 Jul 2010 00:13

Jubilee Set

Global Administrator · Post by **Global Administrator** » 12 Jul 2010 01:34

Never seeen a Dark Hills CTO and that is a beauty, but if it was sitting here it would get a VERY fast haircut along top with scissors!

Just enough of the year to prove it was not a 60s "per favour" etc.

[/img]

]

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 12 Jul 2010 02:25

This is going to be a Great Thread. Nice to see all the great pics. this is an item I picked up earlier this year. Oddly I have never seen the thick paper w/wmk Hermes CTOd before. Probably just me, but I was glad to find it! Stamp is NH with no disturbance so I presume that the cloudy frame on top is an oddity.
Dave

amfhf1 · Post by **amfhf1** » 12 Jul 2010 05:15

You guys are killing me. Since starting to visit website I have learned that in a subject I thought i had a little knowledge in Australia I have none.
So these are likely CTO then ?Both watermarked small crown c of a multiples

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 12 Jul 2010 05:49

No WMK. Because they are Line Perf, these are often poorly centered.

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 12 Jul 2010 05:56

Because I can and as a reminder...these are Commonwealth CTOs as well!

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 12 Jul 2010 06:00

Just in passing, during the Commonwealth period in NSW, they used a three ring obliterator to CTO stamps. These were for presentations to MPs, primarily.

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 12 Jul 2010 11:39

Those are some sweet stamps Pete. Interesting '06 cancel on the OS perfed pounder. Its also interesting that the cliches on the dues were so close together that it's truely a wonder ANY were perfed nicely!
This set is rather common, but I think intrigueing and a set worth specializing in for freaks and errors, cost being a small consideration. And on top of that (for me) this is the set that really kicked off the Pacific war. Just a neat understated set I think.
Dave

Philanthropist · Post by **Philanthropist** » 12 Jul 2010 12:00

Very informative thread.
Now off to check for the Dark Hills on mine

Regards

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 12 Jul 2010 14:25

6d Air Mail Service

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 12 Jul 2010 14:26

5/- Robes (thick paper)

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 12 Jul 2010 14:28

A.I.F. Set

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 12 Jul 2010 14:35

Dave,

Nice to see some KGVI. Not a single KGVI CTO in my collection.

Hope someone can show some of the KGVI CTO definitives here. I don't remember seeing many at all in dealers stock books over the years.

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 12 Jul 2010 14:40

Nice stamps Rod as with the others you've posted! Call me "crazy", but that postmark on your OS Air above looks MUCH Smaller than usual! It looks like a CTO, but if it is, then I dont think that canceller is commonly seen. Is it included in the KGV ACSC? (Im assuming that each Kellow volume contains examples of the cancellers used in THAT volume. Am I wrong?)
Dave

RodT · Post by **RodT** » 12 Jul 2010 15:05

davpot wrote:Nice stamps Rod as with the others you've posted! Call me "crazy", but that postmark on your OS Air above looks MUCH Smaller than usual! It looks like a CTO, but if it is, then I dont think that canceller is commonly seen. Is it included in the KGV ACSC? (Im assuming that each Kellow volume contains examples of the cancellers used in THAT volume. Am I wrong?)
Dave

Hi Dave,

I thought it was the bottom one of the three KGV datestamps, as illustrated here from the ACSC.

But you're right - it's not. The lettering on mine is around the wrong way!

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 12 Jul 2010 16:52

Rod, Pete, Glen, Clive et al: Are we missing something here referencing the SMALL letter postmark on the OS Air above?
DAve

Thanks Rod for confirming my suspicion. Hmmm...

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 12 Jul 2010 18:57

I must admit, I focus on the George V era and haven't really done the research on George VI and QEII. This was the only George VI definitive CTO I could find in a quick search.

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 12 Jul 2010 18:59

When you think about it, these small stamps would have required a correspondingly smaller CTO cancel, else they would have been obliterated.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 13 Jul 2010 00:03

Peter,

Because I can and as a reminder...these are Commonwealth CTOs as well!

They are, and both deserve an outing.

And from the sublime to the ridiculous -

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 13 Jul 2010 00:16

Back to roos for a moment - this 9d has the April 1913 CTO presentation cancel

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 13 Jul 2010 00:55

Peter,

When you think about it, these small stamps would have required a correspondingly smaller CTO cancel, else they would have been obliterated.

I don't think so. This sampling seems 'normal' -

Clive

Global Administrator · Post by **Global Administrator** » 13 Jul 2010 01:00

Yep that is the usual cancel on the 1937 era small Defins.

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 13 Jul 2010 15:26

OK, so every time I bring up the Sydney CTOs, I kind of kill the conversation Im thinking....so let me try something different: here's a 3rd wmk 5 shilling with what I THINK is a CTO cancel, but no gum. What do you think?
Dave

Global Administrator · Post by **Global Administrator** » 13 Jul 2010 16:04

My vote is 50/50.

That dark colour (the 5/- is in many shades) is where one finds the CTO so might be OK.

8)

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 13 Jul 2010 16:50

Well, here is a set of KGVI defins NH minus the 5/- and up I hope it fits! The seller had another set, but I thought....I just need one! I hope they look OK...
Dave

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 13 Jul 2010 17:27

davpot wrote:OK, so every time I bring up the Sydney CTOs, I kind of kill the conversation Im thinking....so let me try something different: here's a 3rd wmk 5 shilling with what I THINK is a CTO cancel, but no gum. What do you think?
Dave

I must admit to being dubious. The colour of the cancel doesn't look quite right to me.

As regards Sydney CTO, I would consider them per favour. There is a possibility that the odd stamp might have been cancelled for inclusion in sets sold in Sydney, but I don't think there would be any way to prove on an individual basis.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 13 Jul 2010 17:58

Dave,

Your 5/- 3rd wmk looks kosher to me.

I have a 'second' (nibbled perf) that is very similar - either we both have duds (possible) or they are both okay.

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 13 Jul 2010 18:03

Dave,

Well, here is a set of KGVI defins NH minus the 5/- and up I hope it fits! The seller had another set, but I thought....I just need one! I hope they look OK...

What a lovely set, out of a collector's pack. You should have bought the other set - if only so that you could have sold it to Rod or Peter or me

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 13 Jul 2010 18:15

Dave,

OK, so every time I bring up the Sydney CTOs, I kind of kill the conversation Im thinking....

No, no, far from it, mate. It's just that I think we really don't know if Sydney (and other) cancels were used to make up collectors' packs.

As regards Sydney CTO, I would consider them per favour. There is a possibility that the odd stamp might have been cancelled for inclusion in sets sold in Sydney, but I don't think there would be any way to prove on an individual basis.

I think Peter is probably correct, that a stamp here or there could well have been cancelled in the GPO where the collectors' packs were sold. But as far as I know there isn't any hard evidence to support the theory.

Clive

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 14 Jul 2010 00:26

thanks you guys. As an interesting aside: The stamps pictured are just 2 from an incomplete (missing the Specimen Arms) Collector Pack dated 1950. All other values are also cancelled with the SYDNEY canceller! Is that strange or what? So what do we make of that? Looks to me like some manager was "off the reservation" or there should be some records clarifying the Sydney issue. Just my thoughts...
Dave

davpot · Post by **davpot** » 14 Jul 2010 00:39

Referencing the "dubious" 5/- above: Here is another copy which I believe is Kosher. Simon Dunkerley gave it the OK some years ago. But I thought you might like to see it. Took me Forever to find one! (has gum)
Dave

Strangely, you can just see some yellow ink INSIDE THE KANGAROO! Whats up with that?

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 14 Jul 2010 01:27

David

thanks you guys. As an interesting aside: The stamps pictured are just 2 from an incomplete (missing the Specimen Arms) Collector Pack dated 1950. All other values are also cancelled with the SYDNEY canceller! Is that strange or what? So what do we make of that? Looks to me like some manager was "off the reservation" or there should be some records clarifying the Sydney issue. Just my thoughts...

STOP PRESS

That was the memory jogger I needed. You are right, have been right all along cobber!!!!!!!

After your emails I went and dug up my 1950 collector's pack and guess what? As far as I can tell, all the stamps (except the Specimens) have the Sydney cancel!!!!!!

What reference mark does your 1950 collector's pack have? Mine is C7191/50.

Oddly, all stamps from my subsequent collectors' packs (1964 and 1966) are cancelled Melbourne.

So were all the c1950 collectors packs made up in Sydney, or just some of them?

PS Still hoping you'll post pictures of those CTO penny roos.

Clive

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 14 Jul 2010 01:37

Thick paper Robes

I'm fairly sure that the five and ten shillings are real deal CTO. Not as sure about the £1 and anyway it has a tone spot.

Curiously, the 10/- and £1 are not listed CTO in the ACSC, so does that mean the editors don't believe they exist or that they simply overlooked them? The Specimen overprinting began around 1942, so time enough for some CTOs to slip through.

Clive

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 14 Jul 2010 07:30

clive willingham wrote:Thick paper Robes

I'm fairly sure that the five and ten shillings are real deal CTO. Not as sure about the £1 and anyway it has a tone spot.

Curiously, the 10/- and £1 are not listed CTO in the ACSC, so does that mean the editors don't believe they exist or that they simply overlooked them? The Specimen overprinting began around 1942, so time enough for some CTOs to slip through.

Clive

For a 10/- (indeed, any value over 5/-) to be CTO (as opposed to per favour) indicates an error on someones part. We know it occurred when the decision was made to include OS stamps in packs, that is how the hi value bi-colours made a very temporary appearance (apart from the 10/- Third WMK which, for some unfathomable reason wasn't withdrawn along with the £1 and £2, which were). We do know the 10/- Robes was issued as a Specimen very early, well before the £1.

I'm curious, why do you consider any of these stamps CTO? They look like FU copies to me.

Clive · Post by **Clive** » 14 Jul 2010 10:00

Peter,

For a 10/- (indeed, any value over 5/-) to be CTO (as opposed to per favour) indicates an error on someones part. We know it occurred when the decision was made to include OS stamps in packs, that is how the hi value bi-colours made a very temporary appearance (apart from the 10/- Third WMK which, for some unfathomable reason wasn't withdrawn along with the £1 and £2, which were). We do know the 10/- Robes was issued as a Specimen very early, well before the £1.

You are likely quite right.

My reasoning is that, according to the ACSC, the ten shillings robe was issued in April 1938. It was not until more than four years later, "about August 1942", that the stamp overprinted specimen was introduced into collectors' packs.

The stated Post Office policy was to include all current postage stamps in collectors' packs. So, for a period of more than four years, the ten shilling Robes was on issue. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch, to me at least, that some of these stamps may have been so included perhaps, as you say, by error or at least inconsistent with Post Office policy.

As to the cancellations, again, you may be quite right - I am not in a ditch on that aspect, although the cancel on the ten shillings, along with another copy I have, does to me look very similar to known CTO cancels. Another aspect is that if these stamps were in fact treated in the way I theorise, the cancels could still be CTO but not one of the three shown by ACSC. Doesn't do to be too dgmatic with these cancels, I'm discovering, especially after David Potts virtually 'sealed' his theory that Sydney provided some genuine CTOs in collectors' packs.

So much yet to learn.

Clive