King George V Sideface Varieties

I hope these new images are clear enough. Apologies for the messy start, I would still appreciate any information on my dad's stamp.

Sorry - better orientation

Scott 17, no variety, but is damaged. Lower left hand corner (when viewed from the front), is connected and folded over and might press out to improve the look, but really not worth it. Value: essentially just fond memories of your dad's collecting interests.

Keep posting things, though. You never know what may turn up.

You are so right - I hadn't noticed that the corner was folded back. All is clear now, just that the lines are so white in that corner under the roo's tail. Thanks for generously sharing your knowledge. To my uneducated but keen to learn eye, it just looks like a much "better" stamp than so many of the other KGV's! And yep, I love spending time with dad's stamps - it's such a tangible connector to him.

ACSC BW89(22)d -- SG77

From Plate 22, Left Pane, Position 1.

BW68Cw(8)d -- SG94

½d Yellow-Orange variety "Die 1a - Color flaw between Oval and left side of Right Wattle". Most likely CTO.




ACSC offers the following note:

• This variety exists in 12 positions of Electro 8 and is a sub-type variety caused by the adhesion of foreign matter over the striking of 12 lead moulds, which were subsequently randomly placed in the forme prior to the growing of the electrotype shell.

(I may have added this stamp before, but it didn't come up in a search.)

Yes, I would say it meets the requirements for a CTO. Better yet if gum on back.

Nice example. Shows that true Fly-Specking sometimes finds these listed varieties.

BW89 -- SG77 Two states of variety not listed in either catalogue.

Plate 21, Right Pane, Position 48. Plating located by Bill Fiora's "KGV Threehalfpence Die I Flaw Location Guide".







In Bill Fiora's reference, the second of the above is labled as a Retouch. My example is a bit different from the images in Fiora's book in that in the book the line outside of the outside the right frame is distinct and does not extend above the break in the right frame at the emu's tail.

SG77 -- BW89(21)I
Distorted Crown




ACSC just mentions the distorted crown. Bill Fiora's variety location guide, however, indicates additional flaws associated with the Oval and the Emu. This could be a single flaw. fr example, if there is a nick low down in the Left Frame, the location guide will flag both the Left Frame and the bottom Left Corner as worth of investigation. If anyone can point me to this/these, I would be very grateful.

BW89 -- SG77 Variety not listed in either catalogue.

Plate 22, Right Pane, Position 22.

Two examples.





The second image shows the two variety features mentioned in Bill Fiora's location guide. The third image shows what appears to be another constant feature: a small white area at the base of the emu's tail, where it merges into the right frame. This additional feature is present on both of my examples.

In the second example, the top is shaved towards the left corner. What is odd is that there also seem to be vestiges of the perforation going off at the same angle.

Thanks for posting the 22R22 example. I had one in my collection that I couldn't identify for the longest time, and it matches yours:

I want to note that if I squint really hard, I see that the right margin, at the top, matches mine with some simple bumps and features as shown below:

That's always the problem, isn't it? How small a fly do you want to speck. But no matter how small they are, they can make or break the identification of even the largest variety if that variety shares to many similarity with others.

ACSC BW89 -- SG77 Variety not listed in either catalogue.

Unlocated Constant Variety - white flaw under U of AUSTRALIA.

Listed in Bill Fiora's location guide as UCV G28 (R Col). "R Col" indicates that the stamp comes from the righthand column in a pane.

1½d scarlet KGV Sideface Die II with small multiple watermark SG96 with variety "Broken cross on crown". The right hand half of the cross is missing. ACSC BW92(3)f.

I have always had trouble separating the 1½d KGV Sideface Die I stamps from Die II. ACSC describes key differences but unfortunately does not provide illustrations of the differences. I have finally resolved this issue by creating comparative images in high resolution (4800dpi). Now I recognize that this is largely a personal thing, it may , however, be possible that others can benefit from the images I have created.

ACSC gives descriptions of two areas of difference between Dies I and II.

• The STA in POSTAGE is smaller on Die II than in Die I. My feeling is that although this is a valid point which becomes obvious when comparing stamps from the two dies, it is not so obvious when examining just a single copy.
  


• The second area of difference described in ACSC relates to the Left Value Tablet of Die II. The 2 in the ½ fraction is not centered on the 1 of the fraction (as per Die I) and is offset to the left. This is a valuable comparison in that it does not require comparison for determination.
  It is worth mentioning that the 2 seems to have been reduced in size, but retains (approximately) the lower and left boundaries of the Die I version. This explains its being offset to the left. It also results in a wider spacing between the 2 and the fraction bar.
  

The above images have been reduced to meet SCF's requirements for downloads. If anyone would like copies of the original 4800 dpi images (a total of about 1.5Mb) just drop me a line.