King George V Sideface Varieties

There has not been much on this subject for a while so I thought I would post what I have the varieties that I have. If anyone else would like to contribute to this topic, it would be most welcome - and appreciated.

I shall be using ACSC catalogue numbers but will also give the nearest SG number and some details on the stamp.

My first is the ½d green ACSC 63(1)h - rounded NW corner. This variety is not listed in SG. The number in brackets defines the electrotype plate (electro) each of which for this issue, has two panes (Left and Right) on which the variety is found.

This variety is not listed in SG. SG number for the basic stamp is 21.

Issued 22 February 1915
Perf 14.25 x 14 Comb
Wmk Type 2 second watermark (SG Type 5)
Electro 1, Left pane, position 19 (1L19).



This may not be an impressive variety but it has a pretty good catalogue value.

Itma. Be careful to see exactly what they are showing in the ACSC catalog. I have the 2014 version, where the rounded corner is listed as 63(1)f. However, the rounded area is not the absolute corner, but just below it, as shown in this snippet.


I don't see any of this "roundness" in your example. Did you post the correct picture?

So, not the NW border but the tip of the design element that sits in that corner just below the border?

That's my understanding. The stamp must match the illustration almost exactly to be considered the listed variety. In this case, notice the area highlighted with Red Lines? It is very much different and could be called, "rounded".


Here is a closeup of a normal stamp. See the difference in the feature?

Yes, I see. Clearly different from the OP.

ACSC is quite a detailed tome for those interested in Australia. As you can see, my catalogs are slightly out of date. The newer ones have more varieties, and most are in color. Here is an example of one that is seemingly nothing, but is a listed variety. My Scott 20 looks pretty normal, but notice the small dot above the King's eye, just below the first A in Australia.


Now here is the illustration of ACSC 66(8)h in my version, which is called, "white spot in front of king's forehead".


The location is in the right place, and the shape of the spot is good. I'd call it an exact match. As someone in a different forum frequently says, "Knowledge is Power".

itma,

As mentioned above, your stamp is not the rounded NW corner - it should be the white part of the design that is rounded.

There are also secondary flaws that should be present and are missing from your stamp - such as a white space between the end of the kangaroo's tail and the lower left projection point.

Thanks to all. I'm not off to a very good start, but I can see the errors of my way. Let's hope I do better with this one.

Here is the 1d red 71(3)l* (SG 21c) - colour spot adjoining SE corner. for the 1d denomination, ACSC uses a different scheme for defining positions. In this case it is VI/2. Two electros were used per plate.

* I have a bit of a reservation about this identification. Although the perforation measures as 14.25 x 14, the upper left corner, in particular has the appearance of line rather than comb perforation. The given position of this stamp, however, puts it in the uppermost row of the sheet which may be a factor. Possibly it is one of the so-called jumbo stamps. Note that this stamp was briefly printed with 14.2 line perforation (ACSC 70, SG 21) but this does not have this variety listed.

Issued 7 August 1914 (earliest known use)
Perf 14.25 x 14 Comb
Wmk Type 2 second watermark (SG Type 5)
Place 3
Electro VI, position 2 (VI/2).

BW 96(12)j (SG 78 Variety not listed)
Variety: White flaw on second "A" of "AUSTRALIA"

Issued 1 May 1924
Perf 14.25 x 14 Comb
Wmk Type 2 second watermark (SG Type 5)
Electro 12, Right pane, position 28 (12R28)

itma

Just a note to help you with some minor points.

I suggest you have a good look at what you have posted on your 2d flaw. You have named it as ACSC 96(12)j - from electro 12 -but have stated it is cliche 16R28 from electro 16.

Also ACSC entries should be prefixed BW as requested by the authors.


The KGV community in Australia uses the term Single Watermark instead of Second watermark which is the term used by the Roo people.

Regards
Frank

Thanks, Frank. I have never been a good proof reader and am also just a bit dyslexic. It is, of course, electro 12. I have made the corrections.

Thanks also for the heads up re BW numbering. I had thought that ACSC covered the situation.

For those not familiar with BW and ACSC, Brusden White (BW) is the publisher of the Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Catalogue (ACSC).

Frank.

Here's my contribution for today. I found this in an APS Circuit book, and only wanted it because I was looking for a die II variety (the roller flaw, white spur, showing in the left numeral box).


But, notice the pure "ugliness" of this item. Who would want this stamp in their collection?


ACSC does a very lengthy write-up of the "substituted cliche, Die II". It is properly identified as:

Scott 21e
ACSC BW 72(2)ja
Single Watermark
Rough Paper
Comb Perf 14.25 x 14
Issued starting about November 1916.



The other features to notice is the missing notch at the top right:


and the small "egg" below the emu:


To paraphrase key notes in ACSC, there is a generally accepted theory that two positions were flawed on the left plate due to some storage issues, positions 34 and 35. The protective coatings could have been eroded by "rats" which lead to some serious corrosion. Starting in November 1916, this showed up as white patches, as you can see in my example. For some reason, these left plates were pulled, then reintroduced in January 1917. (Rose shade?)

The interesting part of the story is that these offending positions were cut out of the plate and one of those two substituted versions is mine, which is position 34, which matches with the emu egg, and the all important Die II. (Position 35 is Die I.) Since these substitutions were made of copper, they wore very rapidly, hence no top to the crown, thinned top frame, and rounded corners. So, my stamp was printed probably in December 1917 or September 1918. (Probably December 1917 based on the wear at top.) They were not used again for printings in red.

Now, an extremely collectible item would be a block of 4, containing my number 34, number 35 which was also substituted (copper), and the adjoining positions 40 (retouch to the B) and 41 (dot on Y). There are only three blocks of this rusted combination known.

Happy hunting!

Partime:



I've got quite a few like this (as you have probably noticed).

Today's offering is another 1d Red

BW 72(4)j "RA" of "AUSTRALIA" joined (SG 47g)
Issued: November 1917
Perf: 14.25 x 14
Wmk: Type 1 First Watermark (SG Type 5)
Plate 4, Electro VII, position 60 (Stamp in the bottom left corner of the pane)

Itma. I like the RA joined variety, and I have several copies. It is available on many different stamps. Here is the 1d Violet, otherwise known as Scott 22, ACSC BW 76(4)j.

It is interesting to see that the 1d (4)j variety also has the top of the crown sloping down to the right.

Here's another 1d violet variety, one of many varieties having damage to the cross on top of the crown:

BW 76(3)i
Variety: Broken top of crown
Perf: 14.25 x 14
Wmk: Type 2 Second watermark
Position: Plate 3, electro V, position 38 (V/38)

No topic showing KGV 1p would be complete without showing the "secret mark". I don't think this was actually an attempt to hide anything as there seems to be much more to it than the small illustration and zero explanation in ACSC.

This is:

Scott 23, ACSC BW 77(4)d
Position VII/1
Single Watermark
Issued May 1, 1924
Perforation 14.25 x 14 comb

ACSC picture


Here is my example:


The secret mark is supposedly the obvious notch in the bottom frame. However, if you look up to the left, you can see that there is a disturbance which starts below the "O" of Postage, then continues through the O and into the top of the P.


This is actually partly shown in an earlier picture in my ACSC, so it makes me wonder if the "secret mark" was deliberate, or just an explanation for a gross error.


In any case, a collectible item, should you find one.