King George V Sideface Varieties

Itma

I would suggest that they are both 3L30. I am attaching a scan of the flaws on 4L55 from the new book by Bill Fiora, there is a top frame flaw shown that is not present on yours and both copies seem to have the bottom frame shaved on the left to the 'F'.

The last E of PENCE distortion is quite common on a number of positions.




Tasnaki

Tasnaki:

Point taken. I can see I need to upgrade 1½d Die II documentation. ! am currently awaiting delivery of Fiora's Die I study but I am not sure I have sufficient Die IIs for it to be worth the expense.

My earlier BW 92(3L30) on Page 14 positioning was confirmed by another member of BSAP.

Thanks for chipping in on these two stamps. I am really surprised that it hasn't happened more often on this topic. Either I'm getting things right or perhaps there is a limited interest in varieties.

Frank.

Opinion
with respect.
Here's the thing, realistically, what can you expect?
The KGV stamps are a vast enterprise, it can be likened to studying straws in a haystack.

I had agonised for years on how to organise my 5,000 or so KGV.

What I have landed on, is
1. A decent scan
2. Scott number followed by ACSC number
3. description

ALL IN I IMAGE

Now I certainly read all your posts, but I cannot use any information, as the ID is scattered across a number of scans
and does not conform to my database.

I DO USE your thread, If I have a ACSC variety, then I shall search this thread, using the ACSC text string.
THEN it becomes useful.

Here is how I keep / prefer my info,
so when I get a say...Sc#68
I search for #68 and I can immediately see what varieties I have.

There is no criticism on how you do things Frank, just letting you know perhaps why member do not always respond, yet they are reading.

Rod:

I hear what you are saying and agree with parts but not others.

I agree that my prose way of describing things is not optimal - and I've been told this many times in the past. So here, I'll try to do better in future.

I also agree that a decent scan is needed but not that everything should be squeeze into a single image. My approach, particularly for varieties, is:

• Original scan at 1200bpi and JPEG quality 100% for archive
• Resample image to 600px width and reduce JPEG quality until image is under 200KB - this normally results in a JPEG quality of 80-85%
• Shading lines should be distinct across the entire stamp
• Separate image for variety area at original 1200bpi or better and JPEG quality 100% (I personally find the 'sanitized' images in ACSC and elsewhere to be somewhat lacking.)

Having the entire stamp clear is important as, for example, it allowed Tasnaki yesterday to correct what I presented as 4L55 to 3L30 by being able to see a slight frame irregularity (or a lack thereof) outside the main area of interest. Often a distinguishing feature on KGV sidefaces is a break in a shading line, so I like my images to show all shading lines clearly.

I do not agree with the concept of adding all a stamp's data to its image.

• It gobbles up a major portion of the image's legal size
• The data cannot be copied and pasted as text

I have, however, considered adding a catalogue number to the image (as well as the original file name) as long as it doesn't impinge on the design of the stamp. It's just inertia that has held me back on this.

Finally, I am a bit hesitant to add text and/or images cut directly from any publication. Before I retired, my company operated in an industry where intellectual property was everything. Though I do admit to having posted a few of the ACSC images of varieties.

So look out for my next variety post and let me know if it is an improvement!

Regards,

Frank.

Frank

I have been reading your posts for some time as I have a reasonable collection of all values. The reason I commented on the your latest posts is that I have been working on a side project to prepare a database of the compartment marks of the 1½d die 2, I have many thousand copies including blocks and a full sheet.

With the 5 sheets plus the booklet sheets there are 720 (I think!) possible positions! Then there are the 2d overprints as well!

My primary focus is on plating the Tasmanian Pictorials and there are several free guides published, as one of the authors I have no problems with others using my material.

Tasnaki

1½d Die I

• BW 89(19)f / SG 77 variety not listed
• Lower frame cut under PENC
• Plate 19, Left Pane, Position 51 (19L51)
• This variety exists only on BW 89.
  • BW 89 was first use of Plate 19
  • Next 1½d issue was Die II

Nearly There Frank
Squeeze up the text, no extra horiz spaces
Use a bigger font size.
and Bob's your uncle.

Personal choice here, I prefer my scans on a black background
looks nicer in my opinion, but can highlight any nasty perforation damage.

Intellectual property.
I support all works by authors when I spend hundreds of dollars buying their catalogues, and monographs.
Every time one posts an image with a BW catalogue number, you are promoting their work.
Most authors I would suggest, want their work appreciated, the same as you do, when you post.

Now, if I use a Screen grab of your variety, I am then using your intellectual property.
But the author is broadcast, as well as the consulting bibliography.
I see no problem there myself.
If you requested I desist, then I would, but I see that as counter productive.

To get your post in a format I can use, I had to minimise the image
I need no close up of the variety focus.

This is usable
Example

Rod:

Take another look at my post of yesterday. I have removed two of the three new-line characters. Believe it or not, there is only one new-line character left in the whole message: between the two images. 'Forum Code' apparently adds its own line spacing before and after a list and between items in a list.

There is no need to include the attribution column in your archive images, but I appreciate the gesture.

I agree re black backgrounds. The only time I have a white background is if the stamps are mounted on white paper.

Ros/Tasnaki:

Perhaps I should better define what I have been meaning re intellectual property. I am not referring so much to those images posted by people from their own scans but rather to scans from commercially published works such as ACSC. Here's what BW say in their opening pages.


They place no restrictions on using their catalogue numbers as long as they are preceded by 'BW'. By the 'no part may be reproduced', etc., I take to mean:

• I can copy 'parts' for my own personal use
• I can send such copies of these 'parts' to a third person as part of my private study
• I cannot broadcast these parts, e.g. in a published work or on an open public forum

So my interpretation is that I am not allowed to, for example, to copy ACSC illustrations to SCF. I am sure that BW's official stance is that if someone needs that illustration, they can always buy a copy of the catalogue. Having said that, I am sure that BW turns a relatively blind eye to such activity, unless it really gets out of hand.

I have three what I would call enthusiast-published studies from by BSAP and only one has a Copyright notification, so I would agree with you, Tasnaki, that many such studies are generally offered free of Copyright restrictions.

I realize I am being an IP fanatic, but this has been drilled into me over the past 50 years or more. But having said that, I will probably continue to draw on the goodwill of commercial publishers if I can't see a way around a particular problem.

Tasnaki:

I envy your holding of older stuff. I have reached the end of my collecting days and the great majority of my KGVs were handed off to me by my father 40 or more years ago. There have been a lot of glassy stares when I've brought out an album to show people. But there have also been a lot new variety discoveries over this period and searches through dad's packages and even album pages has been quite fruitful.

Frank.

2d Die I ]BW 96 / SG 63 - Variety not listed in either catalogue

• Variety, as shown in detail image:
  • a: Nick in left frame opposite wattle stem
  • b: Right half of top of crown is concave
  • c: Nick in inner band above O of Postage
• Electro 10, Left Pane, Position 13
• Left marginal position confirmed by vertical line in watermark
• Exists only BW 89
• Previous 2d Die I issue only used Electros 1 to 9
• Next (last) Die I issue only used Electros 12 and 16

Personal Opinion.
dislike digital text on a stamp.
or any digital watermark
I dismiss immediately, and move on.

• BW 95E / SG 62a Variety not listed in either catalogue
• Upper frame broken ¼mm left of cross on crown
• Electro 1, Left Pane, Position 53 (1L53)
• Timeline not known

Perfect !

If you keep a cropped screen grab, of all your varieties Frank,
that will enhance your collection as a combined CDRom.
Elevating the value enormously.

Your work and enterprise can be passed down.

Not quite, unfortunately. I have just had to correct the BW number to 95. I had mistyped 65.



Frank.

INDEX OF STAMPS LISTED IN THIS TOPIC

2d Die III BW 103g / SG 63 - Variety not listed

• Variety, irregular top frame at right
  • Black band added to detail image to provide a straight edge
• Electro 3, Right, Position 28
• Exists on both BW 102 and 103, i.e. all Die III issues