Victoria 2d Mauve (Perf 12.5) - Anyone Know The Cv?

There's a listing for this stamp (2d grey-mauve perf 12.5) in my Gibbons Commonwealth 2001 (SG 189), but no price, either for used or mint.

Does anyone with a specialised Australia catalogue know the CV for this stamp?

A complication: SG 189 is Die II. My stamp is Die I. But there's no listing for a Die I 2d mauve with 12.5 perf. Or is there? Am I missing something?

It's SG 189a, but still unpriced.

Jimjamtwo, is the color description correct?. In my old reference SG cat' (2000 Edition) there's a listing SG 178 for Deep Lilac-Mauve Die 1, Perf 13. CV 55c used, £22 Mint.

Thanks, tonymacg, I assumed that 189a was a variety of 189 and so would have to be Die II; however, I just looked at the entry again and it doesn't state specifically that it is Die II, so it could well be intended to mean that it's Die I.

I wonder why it would be unpriced, though. ...

Thanks, finches, but it looks like it's pale mauve!

The perforation of Victorian stamps, particularly prior to 1880, is very complex. What SG list as Perf 12, Perf 13 and Perf 12½ is a very simplified guide. The worst period is 1879 - 1880, after repairs were made to one of the machines that resulted in some pins being replaced. This made the gauge uneven, and using perforation gauges is difficult.

You need to be very precise with the measurement, as perf 13 is actually closer to 12¾ (12.75) and perf 12½ (12.5) usually actually measures 12¼ (12.25).

The other thing is, Die II, particularly the grey-mauve shade, often isn't very apparent, the white lines can be very faint or obscured. When they made these plates by electrolysis, it was the first time they used a protective nickel coating on the plate, which could be a bit uneven and obscure details. Hard to judge the shade from the scan, could be dull mauve, pale mauve or grey-mauve.

First thing is to get the perf spot on - measure all sides.

Balf

SG 189a is Die II. Issued 1880 -- the Die II plates were made at the end of 1878.

Balf

MmmmBalf, I did. I measured this stamp quite a few times. It is definitely 12.5 all the way round. I also checked against the quarter cm. measures to make sure.

I also have to maintain that it's Die I, not Die II. I can't see the slightest indication of a double line. That said, Les Molnar's website includes an image of what looks like a Die I stamp and his caption refers to it as Die II. I've already written to him to ask his opinion.

BTW I agree that often perf 14 is 13.75. I just found this with some British KGV stamps I just checked. Three out of eight were, in fact, 13.75. However, one is 13.5 and I think it would be a bit of stretch to say that it's just the regular 14.

I think it would make nonsense out of catalogues if we start saying that 12.5 is actually 13 or that 13.5 is actually 14 - especially when there's a different CV for the stamp with the different perfs.

I'll discount a variation of a quarter of a cm from the catalogue listing as probably of no significance, but I wouldn't go so far as to discount a difference of half a cm.

In the current (2011) Part 1, it's specifically identified as Die 1.

Wow, great. Thanks for the up to date info!!

Really? Have they changed the issue date? The Die I plates were retired in Dec 1878. The last delivery of Die I stamps to the P.O was on 04/12/1878.

The perf known as 12½ was produced by 2 single line cutters that were purchased late 1879. Hence why no Die I stamp is perf 12½, the machines were introduced after they'd changed to plates 3 & 4 (Die II).

I've double checked several resources and all say the pale mauve of 1880 P 12½ is Die II. I can't see how it could be otherwise. Even the first issue of the Die II stamps is not found in 12½ as they were from beginning of 1879 before the new machines were bought.

Perplexing.

Balf

MmmmBalf, is it possible that there were as yet unperforated sheets of Die I lying around (so to speak) which were perforated with the new machine?

It may seem unlikely, but then again unlikely things do happen.

A lot of people have pointed out to me before (in relation to watermarks) how haphazard a lot of things were in the printers at the time. It's therefore not impossible that a wad of unperforated sheets turned up a year later and so were perforated with a different machine than other stamps of the same issue.

It does seem significant that Gibbons has added this information. Presumably, over the last ten years certain facts came to light that established that Die I stamps perf 12.5 do exist. Otherwise, why would they have bothered to amend the entry?

For comparison's sake, here's an example of SG 189a that was sold recently by Prestige Philately. It says it's Die II, which it clearly is. However, please note that the double line, while very obvious in parts, is not visible around the whole length of the oval frame.

Die 2 appears to have a thicker N and C in pence.

I have no contribution to make to this thread.

Except

A great read indeed

That's a point, finches!

Thanks for looking in, jubilee.

So far, my conclusion is that my stamp is definitely not 189a, so it's back to the drawing board.

I've managed to get a query through to the Gibbons catalogue department, so perhaps that will produce some interesting revelations.