King George V Sideface Varieties

Let's see if I can get better scans.

Hi Captain Stamp,

Your 1d green with the CofA watermark is SG125. Although the Stanley Gibbons catalogue says this is perf 13-1/2 X 12-1/2 the measurements quoted in the Catalogue are rounded to the nearest half. Since SG125 was comb-perforated to make the holes line up, the actual perf measurement may not be in increments of one half. I measured the perfs of a mint SG125 in my collection as 13.3 X 12.6.

Top of the crown is just a blob.

pbmorris, in your 2d red, I think some obstruction, possibly a hair, got between the printing plate and the ink roller. I'm not a zoologist, so I can't tell if it's a kangaroo hair or an emu hair. Either way, it seems to be merely a transient flaw, but interesting.

Thank you really much Classic Coins. Looks like KGV stamps perfs really vary. It's the same thing for many other Australian stamps, so this country is the master of perforations!

Hi,
I believe this is an early engraved KGV 1d possibly Scott #7?
I've loved looking at all these errors and oddities, and now I am wondering if the bottom left corner of my stamp looks right or a bit odd?
I would love any advice about this please

It looks like it has been attached.

It is actually Scott 17, ACSC 59. A better, flat scan would look like this

It's the 1913 recess-printed issue, postmarked Rutherglen, 5th August 1914. All I can see in the bottom left is a small tear and a crease from the end of the tear to the margin. Not a variety, just damage.

It does not line up at the bottom and the frame turns inside on the left. On the back, the paper is thinner in the corner. On the front it appears whiter. As I wrote before: the whole bottom left corner has been (re-)attached.

It's an absolutely horrible picture and I'm amazed how some people can see these things. (Younger eyes than mine, I assume.) However, I have the ACSC 2022 catalog which shows a variety known as, "Retouched lower segment of left frame" for this issue. The picture in the catalog is also not the greatest, but it could be what we are seeing with this stamp

Again, it is very difficult to tell. A flat, higher quality scan of both the front and back would help immensely.

NSK, are we looking at the same corner of the stamp? The photo of the back is upside down. Surely there's a small tear at the bottom of the stamp (top of the photo) and a crease which has caused the design on the front to be distorted?

Yes, we are looking at the same stamp. Seen from the front, there is an enormous discontinuity in the lower frame. To the left, it turns in. Also,the paper in that lower left corner has a whiter appearance. Seen from the back, at top left, there is a huge difference in the paper in exactly the same area. Also, the whole corner has a distinctly different colour from at the back. That is not a small tear; that is the whole corner that either was torn off, or is from another stamp. I would not be surprised if that corner is not even the same catalogue number, but that would require closer inspection.

The perforation tip at the corner looks like it has turned because it is. That corner was re-attached at an angle to the stamp.

It's too bad that some people flip the stamp differently than other people. I prefer a side-to-side flip, where the bottom is always at the bottom, and the top is always at the top, regardless of which side I am viewing. When people flip top to bottom, I can sometimes only tell by looking at the location of the hinge remnant.

In any case, I agree that there is something happening with the front view, bottom left corner.

Thanks to the three of you for your insights and I apologise for the terrible images. The stamp is still attached by a hinge to my dad's album and that's why the back is upside down and the front image is not flat. I also held down the top right corner with a black card when I flipped it in an attempt to make it flatter. Yes I am an ignoramus. I will pull it out and try to produce some better scans today.