Help Needed - Tasmania Pictorials (1902/12)

I've been going through a batch of Australian states issues and, as usual, have found a couple of distinctly odd stamps - stamps I can't figure out and don't know what to do with.

I'd appreciate it if someone with a good knowledge of the Tasmanian pictorials could take a look at my two odd stamps and let me know what they think.

The first stamp appears to me to be SG 239 (1902), 2d deep reddish-violet. This is, apparently, the only possibility, because the postmark clearly shows the date August 8, 1903. (It's definitely a '3' not an '8'.) The next issue of the 2d pictorial, SG 245, did not come out until 1905.



What's odd is that, according to the Stanley Gibbons British Commonwealth catalogue, the the 1902 2d stamp was lithographed not typographed. The typographed 2d - SG 251 - did not come out until 1907.

So what's so odd? I hear you say. This is the problem: the SG catalogue says that the difference between the lithographed and typographed issues is that the former stamp has 'three rows of windows in large building on shore, at extreme left, against inner frame.' My stamp should therefore have three rows of windows. However, it only has two.

In short, while this 1902 stamp has the characteristics of the 1907 stamp, it can't, on account of the clearly dated cancel, possibly be the 1907 stamp.

Does anyone have a solution to this problem?

The only one I can think of is that my stamp does indeed have three rows of windows but I just can't see the third row. Does the third row, perhaps, merge into the roof so that it's extremely difficult to see?

I appreciate the fact that my scan does not really allow you to look closely at the building in question. Unfortunately, my HP All-in-one is not capable of hi-res photos. I've attached a detail, which is clearly too pixellated to be of much help. However, despite the extreme pixellation, I think you can still distinguish the two rows of windows as two lines.

A very common problem for Tasmanian collectors,
the trouble with a lot of posters, is the fact they require
identification with really poor scans.
It's like appraising a diamond from 3 feet.

I think you'll find you have three rows, the bottom row
tends to merge with the waterline.
Tasmanian Lithographed stamps are paler and
have a wishy washy appearance, lacking clarity.

Detail of a tuppeny cancelled 1906
showing 3 lines of windows.

The second stamp, SG 250a (1d rose red, perf 11, 1905) presents a watermark problem. This is the reverse of the stamp:





This is a 'solarised' version of the same image. The processing allows one to distinguish the watermark a little more clearly:





What is happening with the watermark here? It's supposed to be W 11, but what I see looks inverted and reversed horizontally. That can't be possible, can it?

Can anyone clearly distinguish the correct watermark???

rod222, I'm doing the best I can with what I've got.

When I don't post pics, people get cross - or even suspicious - so it's better that I post some pics than none.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with my ability to count - only two rows of windows are visible through a magnifying glass.

But your suggestion makes sense: if there is a third row, it's merged completely into the waterline. It could only be seen, if it's there to see, through a microscope.

rod222, thanks so much for taking the trouble to put up that scan.

I can see the third row in your example.

But looking at mine, I still can't see it. Or maybe I can, just.

Sorry cannot advise further, my catalogues are packed
away for a move.
I can see clearly a "V" wmk bottom just off centre.

Yes I understand that, it's not a criticism jimjam,
just a clarification that we are unable to assist
when working with a poor scan, the appraisal has to remain conjecture.

Bear in mind jimjam, these are "semi fugitive"?
purple, if your example has been soaked poorly,
the clarity may have been compromised.

That said, they are difficult blighters at the best of time,
but you have the cancel at least to assist.

A query from 8 years ago....

" a row of bicycles"....
that's how confusing they can be.

'I can see clearly a "V" wmk bottom just off centre.'

Yes, I can too - but that's the problem. If it's a 'V,' then its SG 238 (w10).

But if the watermark is w10, shouldn't the 'V' be above a crown? Is there a crown over the V? I can't see it myself, but I suppose we can assume it's there. If it is there, is it common for the watermark to appear as crown over V?

That will be a V/Crown wmk.