gotstamps85
Member 
Knee deep in Ebay listings
Posts: 129
What I collect: Classic GB Empire &World
|
Post by gotstamps85 on Aug 21, 2021 18:57:08 GMT
I've been trying to id a penny red stamp I recently acquired. I've not attempted to pick out a catalogue number before so I'm going to outline my notes, post some pictures and then ask folks more knowledgeable than I to tell me just how wrong I am. This is based off of the SG 1944 Catalogue, British Empire. Ok; 1. I believe this is a perf 14 stamp. 2. It's also Plate 96. 3. According to SG, the perfs did not officially enter circulation until 1852 and letters in all four corners are from 1858. 4. Looking through the entries in SG book, the best match I can come up with is cat number 43. Printed 1858-64 Wmk Large Crown, Letters in all four corners, Die II, Rose-Red. 5. the watermark however would appear to be a non standard variation. See image 3 and the note therein. The watermark would appear to be the variety tagged MA (ML). According to the note in image 3, this variation is found on some plates of the 1864 1d up to ~ plate 96 (such as this particular stamp). However, the letters on this particular stamp are DQ, not MA or ML. 
   How did I do? |
|
stainlessb
Member
qaStaHvIS yIn 'ej chep
Posts: 4,665
What I collect: currently focused on most of western Europe, much of which is spent on France, Belgium, Germany and Great Britain Queen Victoria
|
Post by stainlessb on Aug 21, 2021 19:21:37 GMT
Nice mint stamp!
SG 43/44 depending on what color shade you believe it to be; Scott 33, 33a or 33b -3 color (rose-red, brick red and lake red ) varieties instead of 2 by SG (rose-red & lake red) - I lack plate 225 for a complete plate collection and I gave up early on trying to determine which color it was.... Issued 10/11/1864 and withdrawn 1/18/1869 with a total of 488,300 sheets printed, so it's fairly common. I can't really make out watermark well enough to comment
I also am not finding any notes in my references regarding Die I or II for these... (and this seems to be more related to the penny stars, so perhaps all of the alphabet all 4 corners are Die II
Happy hunting!
|
|
gotstamps85
Member
Knee deep in Ebay listings
Posts: 129
What I collect: Classic GB Empire &World
|
Post by gotstamps85 on Aug 21, 2021 19:29:27 GMT
Thanks, yeah the watermark is pushing my eyesight to its limits. Need a detector I think to really see it clearly. Though I think I can just about make out two large loops either half of the crown.
|
|
rex
Member
Posts: 1,164 
|
Post by rex on Aug 21, 2021 19:41:08 GMT
  Et voilà ... watermark detectors. |
|
vikingeck
Member
Posts: 3,295
What I collect: Samoa, Tobacco theme, Mail in Wartime, anything odd and unusual!
|
Post by vikingeck on Aug 21, 2021 19:51:46 GMT
I hate to be a “party pooper” but .
1 Scott numbers are not the best catalogue for GB.
2 SG 43 penny red plate number 96 it is, a nice unused copy but it seems the gum has been removed long time ago. The presence of plate number confirms the SG listing which will always be Large crown perf 14 ……….with just a few rare exceptions eg occasional imperf and scarce wmk variant.
3 since the gum has gone, damp it with a brush and clean water to remove the hinge remains which are obscuring the watermark.
None of the watermark detectors are accurate when there is surplus paper adhering on the back .
I suggest laying it on a black surface and adding a drop of Ronsonol lighter fluid will clearly show the watermark .
That said I am sure you will have the standard watermark and not the round loop variant. The latter is known on particular stamps and these have been studied and documented for 160 years. Finding the replacement watermark in a totally new and undocumented letter position I am afraid is just wishful thinking.
It is a pretty example but be happy with what it is do not look for something that cannot be there………..
|
|
khj
Member
Posts: 1,470
|
Post by khj on Aug 21, 2021 20:06:49 GMT
It looks like you are simply setting the stamp face down on a black surface, and then digitally processing the dry image. When you do this, it's really really hard to negate the effects/illusions created by the queen's head (my opinion) -- rectangles can become ovals, straight lines can look kinked, lines/dots can appear where there are none in the watermark...
If you cannot see the watermark clearly by simply holding it up to a light and looking through the back of the stamp, I would suggest using watermark fluid or clean lighter fluid and observe the wet watermark in a black tray or on a flat dark surface. The watermark will show much more clearly using wet methods. Take a quick picture while the stamp is still wet with watermark fluid, and use that to decide.
Regarding the MA(ML) and TA(TL) types, when you consider all the possible orientations (normal/reversed/inverted), technically the variety can only appear on positions AA, AL, HA, HL, MA, ML, TA, and TL. So unless you've discovered an unknown watermark bit replacement, it's far more likely you have a normal Large Crown Type II.
Bottom line: perform the wet watermark detection to convince yourself you don't have a normal Large Crown Type II.
|
|
gotstamps85
Member
Knee deep in Ebay listings
Posts: 129
What I collect: Classic GB Empire &World
|
Post by gotstamps85 on Aug 21, 2021 20:45:27 GMT
I hate to be a “party pooper” but . 1 Scott numbers are not the best catalogue for GB. 2 SG 43 penny red plate number 96 it is, a nice unused copy but it seems the gum has been removed long time ago. The presence of plate number confirms the SG listing which will always be Large crown perf 14 ……….with just a few rare exceptions eg occasional imperf and scarce wmk variant. 3 since the gum has gone, damp it with a brush and clean water to remove the hinge remains which are obscuring the watermark. None of the watermark detectors are accurate when there is surplus paper adhering on the back . I suggest laying it on a black surface and adding a drop of Ronsonol lighter fluid will clearly show the watermark . That said I am sure you will have the standard watermark and not the round loop variant. The latter is known on particular stamps and these have been studied and documented for 160 years. Finding the replacement watermark in a totally new and undocumented letter position I am afraid is just wishful thinking. It is a pretty example but be happy with what it is do not look for something that cannot be there……….. Sorry, just to clarify, I'm using a Stanley Gibbons 1944 Cat. I removed the hinge remnants as you suggested, looks a lot better. Dampening the back of the stamp to remove the hinge remnant also better revealed the watermark. It would indeed appear to be the standard type II large crown. |
|
gotstamps85
Member
Knee deep in Ebay listings
Posts: 129
What I collect: Classic GB Empire &World
|
Post by gotstamps85 on Aug 21, 2021 20:49:56 GMT
It looks like you are simply setting the stamp face down on a black surface, and then digitally processing the dry image. When you do this, it's really really hard to negate the effects/illusions created by the queen's head (my opinion) -- rectangles can become ovals, straight lines can look kinked, lines/dots can appear where there are none in the watermark... If you cannot see the watermark clearly by simply holding it up to a light and looking through the back of the stamp, I would suggest using watermark fluid or clean lighter fluid and observe the wet watermark in a black tray or on a flat dark surface. The watermark will show much more clearly using wet methods. Take a quick picture while the stamp is still wet with watermark fluid, and use that to decide. Regarding the MA(ML) and TA(TL) types, when you consider all the possible orientations (normal/reversed/inverted), technically the variety can only appear on positions AA, AL, HA, HL, MA, ML, TA, and TL. So unless you've discovered an unknown watermark bit replacement, it's far more likely you have a normal Large Crown Type II. Bottom line: perform the wet watermark detection to convince yourself you don't have a normal Large Crown Type II. You're correct, was placing it on a black background, and squinting. Turns out its was the standard type II. Wetting and cleaning the hinge remnant was sound advice and better revealed the watermark. |
|
vikingeck
Member
Posts: 3,295
What I collect: Samoa, Tobacco theme, Mail in Wartime, anything odd and unusual!
|
Post by vikingeck on Aug 22, 2021 9:30:21 GMT
That 1944 SG catalogue is an historical artefact. Just like me, and almost the same age. 👨🏻🦳 Much of the info regarding catalogue numbers and stamp details is still relevant, but more information has been added in newer editions and of course the values quoted are totally out of date. It is still better than Scott ( which stainlessb mentions) for GB stamps. Stan refers to 3 colour shades in Scott , Gibbons has 2 but as there is no difference in price I suggest shade is not important and need not become an issue to worry about . Keep a look out for a more recent year , even 2000 is out of date but has more info. And can be found for just a few pounds. My 2017 catalogue prices plate 96 as one of the more common plates, £60 for mint : £2.75 for used. Your stamp would be classed as “unused “rather than “mint” as it is without gum, so a lot less than mint but better than used |
|
gotstamps85
Member
Knee deep in Ebay listings
Posts: 129
What I collect: Classic GB Empire &World
|
Post by gotstamps85 on Aug 22, 2021 9:37:18 GMT
Yea will pick up a newer one at some point. I do like collecting old books as they have a certain character, like old stamps, but I definitely do not have enough book shelf space to start a major collection. My wife would not be happy lol.
|
|
