Victoria Australia Centenary 1934

Hi to all
This is a fairly common stamp, it is worth $1.75 used
It has a partial image on the back from I would say being in contact with another sheet while the sheet was partially damp.
The stamp is on thick paper, and still has gum on it.
It has not been skinned.
It is just a curiosity that was in a a thrift shop pack with two other examples that are normal.
Regards
Horamakhet

horam




I happen you can see through a stamp, nothing to do with sheet being in contact. Although that can happen too but not in this case.
Have to correct myself this make no sense

The only thing I know that don't even come close to what you mean is what I would call "pigment transfer" when two stamps get stuck together. You separate them and the color migrate on the gum.

horam

Can you guess what the slogan cancel mean?

Hi timbres667
Here is as scan of all three
It seems strange that this one has an imprint, from the front the printing is raised, from the back it is recessed, Maybe that is what has happened, anyway the stamp is not damaged, so it is just a curiosity.


All three copies from the same thrift shop batch have varying parts of the post mark.
I believe it says "Victoria and Melbourne Centenary 1934-35

Slogan looks like
Victoria and
Melbourne
Anniversary 1934
plus other words . Goes with the stamp, nice.

The transfer of ink from one stamp to another can happen during printing when certain inks, possibly applied too heavily, do not dry in time before another sheet is laid on top of the first sheet. Offset printing. Gives you a ghost image on the backs of the upper sheet. Happened on some of the 2010 Canada Marine Life booklet panes.

From the same reasoning, if the sheets are at some time touching front to front (like the Marine Life again) you can get a reverse offset image on the front of stamps.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Hi Puzzler

Thank you for that information, it is really helpful
Horamakhet

I suppose the slogan could indeed read 'Victoria and Melbourne Centenary ...', but it wouldn't be correct, strictly speaking. Melbourne was founded in 1834, but 'Victoria' was just the Port Phillip Settlement; it didn't properly become Victoria until 1850, when it was separated from New South Wales. The first semi-permanent European settlement in what is now Victoria was in 1803, near what is now Sorrento, on Port Phillip Bay, although it didn't last long.

You are correct tonymacq but I do not think the government at the time was concerned
It is like the words that John Batman was supposed to have used when founding Melbourne, he is supposed to have said "This is the place for a city"
But I think he may have borrowed them from Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormons who used the same phrase a little bit earlier than John Batman.. History is full of borrowed phrases, speaking from the point of an Archaeologist and Historian, I could probably find lots of borrowed phrases.
Regards
Horamakhet
Regards