Help On New South Wales #65 Watermark Identification

I have a nice used 5 pence dark blue green #65 perf 11 X 12 with an inverted watermark 55. Is this a rarity?

I'm new to classic British Commonwealth, but I thought in most cases watermark inverts tend to be more rare and therefore typically listed at higher CV evaluations.

In the case of the New South Wales #65 neither Scott or Stanley Gibbons list this variation. Have you seen this situation of watermark variations not identified in major catalogues?

Gibbons Commonwealth has a note at the beginning of Australia to the effect of "those crazy Aussie printers paid no attention to paper orientation, especially in New South Wales and on some later issues of other states, so we can't possibly know what went on, and don't list them. If a UK-printed stamp has a variety, we might list that."

Scott and Gibbons list a "watermark sideways" for the later five-pence issue. (Sc. 65k)

Thanks for the clarification. My bad for assuming that ALL inverted wmks represent rare errors. Evidently, if the printers are just careless their variations may not impact collector's prices.

dcaraz1949,
If you are able to, please post a scan of the back of the stamp so that we might see the watermark.

In many cases the sheets of watermarked paper were twice the size of the stamp sheets. The watermarked paper would be inserted and half of the sheet printed with stamps. The sheet would be removed, turned 180 degrees and inserted for printing of the second sheet.

This created a 50/50 ratio of upright to inverted.

It was a reflection of process and not one attributed to a lack of care.

This is not true of all inverteds in Australian States' stamps, though.

I somewhat misremembered the catalogue quote. I was remembering the quote to be that every orientation was possible, when it actually seems to say that, when sideways orientations are known, then it can be any permutation of sideways. Here is the language, instead of my silly paraphrasing.

Notwithstanding the Stanley Gibbons introductory note that is often dismissively quoted when an enquiry is made of watermark varieties among the Australian colonial issues, the fact is that they are rare on some issues and common on others.

As the note states, on some issues the watermark varieties were "restricted to odd sheets".

It naturally follows that the value would be much higher for such stamps but "due to the circumstances" (i.e. lack of reliable/accurate statistics regarding the numbers printed in various orientations) they find that "..it is impossible to provide adequate prices..".

Nobody, for instance, should be conned into parting with an inverted crown over NSW watermark on a Queen Victoria halfpenny for the ordinary catalogue price by means of a supercilious reminder of that quote. The same holds for a 1d shield with inverted crown over single-lined A and many others.

On many issues, for the reason mentioned by 64idgaf or due to tete-beche plates etc., watermark inverted is easily found. Nobody, for example, should pay a premium for an inverted crown over NSW watermark on a 2d emu stamp.

The 2004 Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Catalogue provides information and relative pricing for issues from 1901-12 and other esteemed publications such as Hutson's 'The Stamps of New South Wales' and the works of Basset Hull give further insight but there is still much to be documented.

In the case of the 5d large diadem stamp shown by dcaraz1949, watermark inverted appears readily found for crown over NSW type II but for the 1903-1912 type III (1mm spacing between crown and NSW) the ACSC assigns a higher catalogue value for inverted watermark.

A comprehensive documentation of the known quantities of watermark orientation from the archival records, published works and a survey of the most comprehensive existing collections of Australian colonial stamps would be a grand work indeed.

More in this thread: http://goscf.com/t/67868&whichpage=1

I'd missed the watermark thread...great stuff.