New South Wales 5d & 8d Imperf Diadems

I'm quite sure I won't be allowed to post a link, but it's the other stamp forum that sometimes gets a mention here.

For what it's worth, and given my opinion is on the Australian board, I don't think it's genuine, but that's no guarantee I'm right

My comments verbatim:

"The more I think about this stamp, the less happy I am.

I examined quite a few double lined 5 watermarks (2d & 5d diadems, and 2d DLR) and none have the top even closely resembling the one shown here.

There's also two cancellations, one bold and one feint.

I'm far from the expert with regards to rebacking stamps, but could this be the case here?"

I saw it sell on ebay. You could submit it for a certificate, but it's expensive and you'll be waiting a while. Until another double 5 watermark appears with a similar top, I'll remain hesitant.


As for getting it wrong, see my post below.

Seeing this thread gave me cause to review my earlier posts.

The fourth 8d imperf stamp with the 64 numeral cancellation, despite having a 1949 certificate, is, I believe, a cut down perforated stamp. The dashes rays cancellation was only introduced in 1864, four years after perforation was introduced. 64 is West Maitland, a very busy office.

The first image is from the Hutson catalogue. The stamp on the left is the correct shade. The second image is an earlier cancellation of West Maitland on a perforated stamp, wmk 8.








On another unrelated note, I see the first image of the thread has been 'borrowed' by this site:

https://www.australianpostalhistory...n-australia/

Kathy (the site owner), if you're reading this, your email is dead.

Thank you again for sharing your insights - I've learned a lot. I agree that it appears different from the confirmed genuine examples. I probably won't pursue a certificate; instead, I'll keep it in my album as a placeholder so the space isn't left empty. I really appreciate all the information you've provided, and I'll review the other related materials from you and others as well.

I'm seeking comments on this stamp - any chance it could be the imperf? Thanks for any help!