Australia 6p - Scott Number?

Hi,

It's write 38a on back... I think it is impossible. Maybe 40a :) or 48a :( or something like that?

Maybe you know?

https://picasaweb.google.com/CDNumS...645362064434

Rod222 know that... sure :)

Thank you!

CDNum
https://picasaweb.google.com/CDNumStamps

I wouldn't assume it is Scott. 38 would be a Stanley Gibbons number for a 6d (albeit a very high catalogue value for 38a, so I wouldn't assume that's right, either, without double checking).

Sorry CDnum,
unable to help,
these Roos are so expensive, I have very few
not enough to study, and leave them to the elite,
and the wealthy.

Nice stamp you have, with a "Registered" CDS
good luck with ID.

If you don't know Rod222... Who know ?

Thank you! :)

CDNum
https://picasaweb.google.com/CDNumStamps

38a is a Stanley Gibbons reference, not Scott. While SG 38a is a 6d ultramarine, it's the Die IIA substituted cliché which is a very rare stamp (Scott 8b.) Wishful thinking I think by whoever wrote it, as your stamp isn't the substituted cliché.

I really don't like Scott for Australian stamps, the Die references are strange or incorrect, and it's fairly simplified. Scott 48a and 48c for example - I don't know how to match those up with SG or ACSC - there is no Die III or IV of the 6d Roo. There is Die II and Die IIB (and the substituted cliché is referred to as IIA.)

To correctly identify most Kangaroo stamps we need to see the watermark, or at least you'll have to state which it is. If you can't get a clear photograph can you identify which it is from the diagrams in Scott? The 6d Ultramarine was printed on first, second and third watermarked paper (Scott diagrams 8,9 & 10.) There are various shades in each. I'm thinking yours is most likely 3rd wmk (or wmk 10 in Scott.) But it's always best to be sure.

Balf

With the 1923 postmark, it's most likely SG 38 - the third watermark type. It was introduced in 1915, after all.

Ok, I've examined the stamp a bit more, and can now identify it as Die IIB (which means it will be 3rd wmk as suspected.)

It's SG 38d. (Perhaps the writing on the back was 38d and the stem of the d is short/faded or rubbed off?)

As to the Scott number, it will be 48 a or c. I can't tell what they refer to, as they don't correspond to the printings. Scott 48 is the 3rd wmk Die II printings, which were printed by both Cooke and Harrison. Then Die IIB was printed by Harrison from June 1921 to 1923 when the colour was changed to chestnut. 48 a & c have the Roman numerals III & IV respectively after the listing. I can't work out what that's supposed to refer to. There was no change in the Die. So take your pick on the Scott number. Probably 48a matches the colour better.

Balf

OK.
I am just "following the leader" here,
to support Balf's assessment, added weight can be
placed when considering circumstances
(my way of guessing)

To me it looks very much like a stamp used
on a registred letter/parcel from BRISBANE
in 1923.
being a medium priced stamp you would assume that
stocks would be constantly called upon at a major postal centre
as Brisbane
A 6d roo from 1921 in 1923 fits the bill.

What is a "dry ink" how do we identify it?

Old 1974 ACSC catalogue

Hi,

Add back picture... yes, I think it's a watermark 10.

https://picasaweb.google.com/CDNumS...163062557074

Thank you!

CDNum
https://picasaweb.google.com/CDNumStamps

Wow, isn't it like 5am in Canada?? Depending on which side of course, it's just after 5am in Toronto.

It's definitely a Die IIB.

Rod, dry ink was when the printing ink was starting to dry and was therefore thick and viscous. It didn't flow correctly into the impressions on the printing plate. The result is a stamp that appears blotchy. Detail will be filled in in some areas and patchy or missing in others.

Balf

Always get up early 4h30AM :)

Thank you MmmmBalf!

CDNum
https://picasaweb.google.com/CDNumStamps

It's a thankyou from him, and a thankyou from me, MmmBalf

I'll look our for dry ink printings in the auction catalogues.