China Id. Half Cent Opt.

Anyone recognise this one?

Looking at Ma's catalog, there are 4 possibilities depending on the the space between the Chinese charactors & the number.

For the small numerial figure surcharge the space is 3mm. Scott 28.
For the large numerial figure surcharge the space is 2.5mm Scott 38
Scott 47, same as Scott 38 however, colors consider pale/dull chrome yellow or yellow buff, gum thin & white
vs thick & yellow.
For the 2nd large numerial figure surcharge the space is 1.5mm. Scott 56
The last possible is a redrawn/new stone spacing at 1.5mm. Scott 73

Good luck!

In my ancient Gibbons China volume, numbers between SG 37 and 86

Thanks Warrehouse, Tony, that made a difficult job a little easier.
Fact: Space between numerical figure and opt is 2.5mm
very light thin paper, and light gum.

In the absence of other advice, I am going SG88 1/2 cent on 3c yellow
1897 SG Type 6 (It also coincides with a low value stamp, which is always my rule of thumb with difficult ID)
SG catalogue part 3 asia 1969
Light damaged or very poor litho print.

Tony, I dragged you away from India...This is good

Rodney, if the surcharge is spaced 2½ mm, it was SG 57 in 1989, and cat. at £2.75.

Not hard to distract me at the moment. I should be making a start on a patent for an 'Object Recognition and Image Interpolating Processing System'. A fly walking up the wall is more attractive.

Tony can you interpolate from my 1967 to yours?
the difference is vast, and I am wondering if I am reading this correctly.
Mt 2.5mm starts at SG78
I still make it SG88
perhaps SG have completely revamped their numbering system here?

Rodney, the 2.5 mm overprint is T14, which can only be SG 48 or 57 (1989 ed), SG 78 or 88 in your cat.

So it would be a Scott #38.

Thanks boys, a shame we don't get more of these, so we can compare,
they come up very rarely.

Type 6 in black and white

Well done all of you gentlemen. I do not know much on the classical China stamps, I just only have borrowed ideas from you and gathered the pictures from internet showed below:

Large Numerals, Numerrals 2.5mm below Chinese characters:

Soctt#38


Scott#47


Large Numerals, Numerrals 1.5mm below Chinese characters:

Scott#56


Scott#65


Scott#73 which Redrawn Designs


Small Numerals 2.5mm below Chinese characters:

Scott#28


Then to my eyes it looks like Scott#65, as the colour is more yellow, not enough orange, and the space is more like 1.5mm.

Thanks for yor input ZhangCheng,
I agree the spacing can be confusing, going by your scans.
The best I could do with the perf guage:



As an aside, can you ID this one for me perchance?
I am guessing a stamp tab from a miniature sheet?

Hello Rod, very glad the picture works well, as I can not see them from my computer since I uploaded...

Thanks for the picture of actual measurement, it make this more easy, as the rule's unit of measurement is 0.5mm, we can say the space is 1.5mm via the picture.

For the red one, it is a Scott#959.

Thanks ZhangCheng, for uncovering what must be the first recorded
evidence of perf guage blindness
What was I thinking?
Apologies to others for the misleading info.

No worries Rod, we are men that we are used to careless.

I can see the pictures uploaded by others, but I still can not see the pictures that I uploaded, how about others, can you see them clearly?

Yes, can see them fine, try perhaps a "refresh"?

Can you give me the year of Scott 959 please?
I still cannot find the blessed thing (In Gibbons)
I am having a bad day.