Mr. H
Member
Member - APS #129381
Posts: 937
What I collect: US, Netherlands, Whatever suits my fancy.
|
Post by Mr. H on Apr 2, 2021 2:17:38 GMT
I came across this today and haven't had any luck figuring it out. It looks like a watermark 3 small star, but the color looks greenish and not brown. The SG catalog shows: 1860-61, W 3, brown, but perfs 14-16
1862-67, No wmk, brown, perf 13
1864-65, W 3, but no 3 pence 1868-74, has a W 4, olive green, grayish green, or brown, and perf 13, but it doesn't look like a 4 to me. What am I missing or not seeing?
|
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,661
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Apr 2, 2021 8:08:10 GMT
Thanks for a very interesting post, Mr. H . I made an earlier post, but thought better of it, and deleted it. I was thinking along the lines that your stamp would most likely be a color changeling, but I realized after further consideration that that explanation doesn't fit in this case. The only new contribution I can make at this point is that I have cross-checked my Scott Classic Specialized Catalogue, and the combination of attributes of your stamp: Chalon Head design type, Perf 13, Wmk Small Star, 3-Pence, and Green-Grey color does not appear to be listed in either SG or Scott. Both SG and Scott do mention reprints of this issue with Perf 13, but no indication that it could have been done on Small Star watermarked paper. I am stumped. Alex ( vikingeck ) or kgvistamps or khj or Ryan or Dave ( DK ) or Dave ( sherro) or anyone else.... any ideas about this one?
|
|
vikingeck
Member
Posts: 3,269
What I collect: Samoa, Tobacco theme, Mail in Wartime, anything odd and unusual!
Member is Online
|
Post by vikingeck on Apr 2, 2021 10:24:09 GMT
I must state I do not have knowledge in depth of the early Australian Issues, so my comments are just speculation ! From a first look , My instinctive reaction was "why worry? it is in such poor state and the colour is obviously faded, probably a changeling anyway. " I confess I would have binned it without further consideration but then Mr. H has legitimate concerns, It is perf 13 and it is not watermark 4 which is the only green 3d issue......................Hmm ? So is the perf wrong? Check the bottom to confirm is it 13 all round . Is the watermark wrong? a) Did the print run include a left over sheet of the Wmk 3 Paper by mistake? or b) was there a damaged brass "bit" in the watermark frame which had to be replaced and one rather wonky star type 3 was soldered in? If this is the case surely after 150 years someone must have spotted another example? I wait to see if an Australia collector has an explanation.
|
|
salentin
Member
collecting Germany,where I live and about 20 more countries,half of them in Asia east of the Indus
Posts: 5,639
|
Post by salentin on Apr 2, 2021 11:24:28 GMT
Why not watermark 4 ? Colour could be,perforation is 13,so it should be from the 1868/74 prints.
|
|
vikingeck
Member
Posts: 3,269
What I collect: Samoa, Tobacco theme, Mail in Wartime, anything odd and unusual!
Member is Online
|
Post by vikingeck on Apr 2, 2021 11:36:14 GMT
Why not watermark 4 ? Colour could be,perforation is 13,so it should be from the 1868/74 prints.
Agree it could be the 1868/74 print runs but Wmk 3 and Wmk 4 are different shaped stars. It might be a damaged star 4, but it certainly looks Wmk3
|
|
Mr. H
Member
Member - APS #129381
Posts: 937
What I collect: US, Netherlands, Whatever suits my fancy.
|
Post by Mr. H on Apr 2, 2021 13:07:29 GMT
Glad to see I'm not the only one a little confused on this one. The perf is 13 all around.
As to condition, I agree it's not much, but my collection of Queensland is sparse so it was going to be a space filler.
|
|
Ryan
Member
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,722
What I collect: If I have a catalogue for it, I collect it. And I have many catalogues ....
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 3, 2021 17:54:20 GMT
Nothing about this is found in the Brusden-White (ACSC) or Michel catalogues either. I thought I might find something when trawling through ancient catalogues on my bookshelf but many of these older books don't include any listing at all for any greenish / olive type of shade on a 3d Chalon (for example, there's no listing for any green or olive 3d Chalons in the 1894 Scott). The only tiny hint I found was in a 1931 Senf Brothers catalogue - there's a note which says (my translation) "the greenish shade which often occurs on #28b [this is the olive-green perf. 13 with #4 truncated star watermark] is based on a process of decomposition". Still, wrong watermark ...
I found a Spink catalogue for a specialized Queensland collection and didn't see anything like what you have. Maybe more snooping through old auction catalogues won't do much good - you would think that if it had popped up in a sale at some point, then a catalogue would have listed it at some point. A mystery!
Ryan
|
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Apr 3, 2021 19:05:07 GMT
A few things from the Robson Lowe Encyclopedia.
The 1895 reprints were printed on two types of watermarked paper, Star Queensland (W4 in SG) and tall/second Crown over Q (W6 in SG).
RL puts the large star (SG W2) at 15.5mm wide, the small star (SG W3) at 13mm wide and the star in Star Queensland (SG W4) at 11mm. Scott Classic mentions that the star in Star Queensland can vary a bit in size and shape.
I think it's from the 1868 series, myself.
|
|
DK
Member
Posts: 1,256
What I collect: Classic NZ, Closed NZ Post Offices, New Zealand Postal History, Classic Br. Empire, Pacific Islands, France
|
Post by DK on Apr 3, 2021 23:58:27 GMT
I have never studied Queenslands stamps before ( I have so few!) but this is looking like a mystery around watermarks! Here are the 3 'Star' watermarks in question - from SG : And the one on Mr.H's example Vs W4: There is a definite difference between the two types, as can be seen. Mr.H's copy looks to be an exact match for SG 65 except - that it should be W4 ! Plausible that some W4's were very similar to W3 - see this ebay lot : Ebay UK - Truncated Stars selectionIn regard to the postmark on the stamp '40' I have found this site that explains the Post Office behind the postmark : queenslandstampnumerals.blogspot.com/2012/11/40-dalrymple.html40 - Burdekin / DalrympleBurdekin post office, 50 km north west of Charters Towers, was opened on 1 April 1864. It was renamed Dalrymple in 1868 and closed on 21 December 1887 Chalon Ray Type 1 c (6 mm) (18 Rays) is rated Rare Sideface Ray Type 1 c (6 mm) (18 Rays) is rated Rare Burdekin date stamp type 2 HERE. Burdekin registered HERE Dalrymple date stamp type 1b HERE. Dalrymple registered HERE Re Allocation:Unknown post office, known on an 1892, 1895 and an 1898 sideface issue and also a Commonwealth issue, both issued after the Dalrymple post office closed Sideface Ray Type 1 c (6 mm) (18 Rays) is rated 4R Commonwealth Ray Type 1 c (6 mm) (18 Rays) is rated 5R Dave
|
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Apr 4, 2021 0:22:50 GMT
|
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Apr 4, 2021 0:43:22 GMT
Try this on for size: A Chalon pair, with a truncated and small star, side by side:
Auction 128 at prestigephilately.com. Here is the description: Description: Perf 13: 2d blue horizontal pair, the right-hand unit being the normal Truncated Star Watermark but the left-hand unit being Small Star Watermark, minor tonespots, light indistinct cancels. A remarkable instance of a wrong watermark "bit" being inserted (replaced) on the dandy roll. Believed to be the only recorded example apart from a pair in the Royal Collection. [Imagine the excitement, and the price, if this was a First Wmk/Second Wmk se-tenant pair of Kangaroos!]
Here is the link:
|
|
DK
Member
Posts: 1,256
What I collect: Classic NZ, Closed NZ Post Offices, New Zealand Postal History, Classic Br. Empire, Pacific Islands, France
|
Post by DK on Apr 4, 2021 0:54:20 GMT
That will be the answer then :-) An incorrect addition to the damaged 'Truncated Star' Dandy Roll. Obviously known about then! Well done ! Dave
|
|
Mr. H
Member
Member - APS #129381
Posts: 937
What I collect: US, Netherlands, Whatever suits my fancy.
|
Post by Mr. H on Apr 4, 2021 3:46:47 GMT
Thank you very much for all the efforts put into sorting this out. The help is much appreciated.
|
|
vikingeck
Member
Posts: 3,269
What I collect: Samoa, Tobacco theme, Mail in Wartime, anything odd and unusual!
Member is Online
|
Post by vikingeck on Apr 4, 2021 7:56:13 GMT
I must state I do not have knowledge in depth of the early Australian Issues, so my comments are just speculation ! Is the watermark wrong? a) Did the print run include a left over sheet of the Wmk 3 Paper by mistake? or b) was there a damaged brass "bit" in the watermark frame which had to be replaced and one rather wonky star type 3 was soldered in? If this is the case surely after 150 years someone must have spotted another example? I wait to see if an Australia collector has an explanation. So thanks to cjd for finding that example which confirms my tentative suggestion of 2 April. Mr. H your horribly damaged swamp is a serious keeper ! Well done for spotting it . Hundreds of others(myself included ) would have binned it without a second ...or third glance!
|
|
DK
Member
Posts: 1,256
What I collect: Classic NZ, Closed NZ Post Offices, New Zealand Postal History, Classic Br. Empire, Pacific Islands, France
|
Post by DK on Apr 4, 2021 8:42:20 GMT
Indeed Alex. Well done :-)
I must wonder therefore why the catalog editors have not created an entry for this in their catalogs.
SG65var 3d Olive Green W3 watermark instead of W4
Dave
|
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,661
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Apr 4, 2021 12:38:45 GMT
Great stuff, Collin ( cjd) and Dave ( DK) and Alex ( vikingeck).... it seems that an answer has emerged, and not at all the one I was expecting! Collin, your find of that auction listing is fantastic--very well done to you! And Dave, many thanks for picking up the slack and posting the images from SG and the eBay lot. I have been a bit slow moving on these things lately, so I really appreciate your documenting this discussion as thoroughly as you have, which really makes the resource-value side of things for the Forum. To your point, Dave, I also wonder why, if this watermark situation is previously documented, there is no associated catalogue listing? Seems a real oversight. But best of all, congratulations to Mr. H on your find! This would have been so easy to overlook, but you were incredibly observant to have noticed this anomaly, and not to have simply discarded the stamp due to its poor condition. It just goes to show that rarities can be found lurking in previously unchecked places, and I give you full credit for finding this one in your so-called "floor sweepings" of all places! Now I am keen to do some treasure hunting in one of my as yet unchecked mixed lots!
|
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Apr 4, 2021 13:58:15 GMT
And now that I know what I'm looking for, I do see a note in Robson Lowe's Encyclopedia under the varieties of the 1868-74 issue that in at least two positions on the sheet, we have the small star watermark, and a se-tenant pair is recorded.
The sheet is 240 positions, 12x20. Not all of those positions will have stars; some will have part of QUEENSLAND.
Happy hunting.
|
|
vikingeck
Member
Posts: 3,269
What I collect: Samoa, Tobacco theme, Mail in Wartime, anything odd and unusual!
Member is Online
|
Post by vikingeck on Apr 4, 2021 16:14:57 GMT
I am surprised then if Robbie Lowe records it back in 1950s, that SG (or Heaven preserve us the great almighty Brusden White ) has not registered it worthy of catalogue mention after all inverted and sideways watermarks are commonly numbered.
|
|
cjd
Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by cjd on Apr 4, 2021 16:52:57 GMT
I'll be back in the same room with my newest SG Commonwealth tomorrow, but I know that in the past, their editorial policy regarding the watermarks of Australian states was something along the lines of, "we think that the printers of these stamps just stuck the paper in the press any which way, so we don't track varieties." Which always struck me as doublespeak for, "we lack data." I'll see if they still have that position.
ETA: Even if they choose to wash their hands of watermark positions, it's hard to imagine omitting this variation. One short sentence under the listing would suffice.
|
|
Mr. H
Member
Member - APS #129381
Posts: 937
What I collect: US, Netherlands, Whatever suits my fancy.
|
Post by Mr. H on Apr 4, 2021 23:28:49 GMT
Thanks again to everyone who helped in sorting this out. I would never have guessed that one watermark in a sheet could be wrong and wouldn't even know where to start to look for that kind of error.
Can't wait to see what else will turn up in the lot.
|
|
Beryllium Guy
Moderator
Posts: 5,661
What I collect: Worldwide Stamps 1840-1930
|
Post by Beryllium Guy on Apr 6, 2021 23:04:28 GMT
Thanks again to Mr. H , Dave ( DK ), Collin ( cjd ), Alex ( vikingeck ), Werner ( salentin ) and Ryan for your contributions to this thread. I searched my holdings here in Oxford for Queensland issues. I could only find one Chalon Head here, but it is potentially interesting to this story. Sorry it took a couple of days to prepare this, as the stamp needed soaking to remove multiple hinge remnants, then pressed flat, now scanned front and back, with a little enhancement added: Queensland, SG60 or 61, 2-Pence Blue or Pale Blue with SG Wmk 4 showing "D" of QUEENSLAND and truncated star. Opinions are welcome, of course. Does it look like I am seeing the watermark correctly?
|
|
Mr. H
Member
Member - APS #129381
Posts: 937
What I collect: US, Netherlands, Whatever suits my fancy.
|
Post by Mr. H on Apr 7, 2021 13:50:02 GMT
I agree, looks like the truncated star with the Queensland "D".
Hard to really see from the picture, but could it be Pl II? Looks like a small dot on the "U" in Queensland.
|
|
alan
Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by alan on Feb 19, 2022 4:31:25 GMT
Hello again DK Dave, Your info on those 2 New Zealands was spot on. No cross showed up after watermarking. I have a new challenge for you. Here are #1 & #2 1860 Queensland No problem seeing the large star watermark on both. My question is condition. The 2p blue looks new, do not see a cancellation, but there is some small dirt in a few random spots. Could that tiny dirt be a cancellation? Let's hope not! Alan
|
|
DK
Member
Posts: 1,256
What I collect: Classic NZ, Closed NZ Post Offices, New Zealand Postal History, Classic Br. Empire, Pacific Islands, France
|
Post by DK on Feb 19, 2022 8:20:37 GMT
|
|
alan
Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by alan on Feb 19, 2022 14:01:16 GMT
DK Dave,
I'm still learning how to navigate around these boards & I see you've been able to move my latest thread over to a Queensland Q & A thread.
THANKS AGAIN ! MUCH APPRECIATED !
There were some fascinating reads on the other thread about Philip getting a NZ 1p SG1 certified. X-rays, special equipment + chemical testing? WOW! Somebody dug deep and hit gold.
I can now see that I'm in the right place to have all you experts chime in to get any answer to my questions.
Carry on with all your great work.
The only thing I can add to this forum is to provide everybody with new material for viewing & discussion.
Alan
|
|
alan
Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by alan on Feb 19, 2022 14:19:30 GMT
Everyone, DK Dave is the BEST ! I've only been on TSF for a week & he has the answers. I'm simply sharing pix of these 1860 Queen Victoria's #1 & #2 (Queensland) for everyone's viewing pleasure. Maybe, one day, this blue queen will go under the x-ray lamp or in some kind of chemical bath to see if there is a cancellation on her! Alan
|
|
tomiseksj
Moderator
Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
Posts: 6,269
What I collect: Worldwide stamps/covers, Cinderellas, Ohio Prepaid Sales Tax Receipts, U.S. WWII Ration ephemera
|
Post by tomiseksj on Feb 19, 2022 17:41:59 GMT
Queensland stamps are best viewed (and more easily found in searches) on the Queensland board.
|
|
DK
Member
Posts: 1,256
What I collect: Classic NZ, Closed NZ Post Offices, New Zealand Postal History, Classic Br. Empire, Pacific Islands, France
|
Post by DK on Feb 20, 2022 2:20:22 GMT
Hi Alan
To answer your question simply, I believe that the 2d blue Chalon is cancelled by an indistinct obliteration. It is very light, but there.
I also believe that both of the 2 Chalons have been trimmed down to resemble imperf from once being perforated ones. There are remnants of trimmed perfs on both examples on the top margins (as can be seen from your images).
As to the watermarks, the 1d red definitely has a 'large star' wmk - the 2d blue looks more like the 'small star' wmk to me.
Dave
|
|
Mr. H
Member
Member - APS #129381
Posts: 937
What I collect: US, Netherlands, Whatever suits my fancy.
|
Post by Mr. H on Jun 20, 2023 18:44:47 GMT
I came across this today and haven't had any luck figuring it out. It looks like a watermark 3 small star, but the color looks greenish and not brown. The SG catalog shows: 1860-61, W 3, brown, but perfs 14-16
1862-67, No wmk, brown, perf 13
1864-65, W 3, but no 3 pence 1868-74, has a W 4, olive green, grayish green, or brown, and perf 13, but it doesn't look like a 4 to me. What am I missing or not seeing? I was just following up on the APS Expertizing of this stamp and was very happy to see the results. (Certificate Number: 246717) Catalog Name: Stanley Gibbons Catalog Number: 65 Condition: Used Opinion Date: 6/14/2023 Final Opinion: Queensland, Stanley Gibbons 65 with watermark 3 (small star) instead of watermark 4 (small truncated star), used. Genuine.
|
|