KGV Head 1p Red - Die Query

I've just purchased approx 250 KGV Head stamps and started going through them( what a job!!)..anyway, I have a 1p Red which has an inverted watermark and I believe is watermark 2 (5 in the Sg catalogue).
The thing that is confusing me is the die types, according to my Rennicks catalogue this is 3 different colours…is this correct. Sg catalogue is a bit vague.
Please see attached photos

Thanks for posting. I love the Australian KGV heads. According to my ACSC (Australian Commonwealth Specialist's Catalogue), you have the second watermark inverted. It is a Die I (due to lack of spur on left one, and the horizontal line on King's neck). It also appears to be a comb perf (not single line) so that leaves us with a "smooth" or "rough" paper option. It is tough to tell from your scan, but I'll hazard a guess of "smooth" paper. This gets us to ACSC 71a, Scott 21. The value in my latest ACSC is AUS$75 if Mint Never Hinged, AUS$50 if Mint Hinged, AUS$15 if Used. If it were rough paper, the used price increases to AUS$75.

ACSC lists 26 different colors for this stamp, so good luck with that.

I have several ACSC 71 varieties, including that one. Good find! Keep posting any oddities that you find.

Partime, does ACSC say that rough paper would be perf 14, and smooth paper would be 14.25x14? That is my best guess as to what Gibbons is saying...

ACSC 70 is listed as Single-line, perf 14.2
ACSC 71 is listed as Smooth, Comb perf 14.25 x 14
ACSC 72 is listed as Rough, Comb perf 14.25 x 14

Gibbons seems to agree to these dimensions where Die I is 14 1/4 line while comb is listed as 14 1/4 x 14.

I have a very hard time telling the difference between Single-line and Comb in some cases.

This example may also help you with some future identifications. It is the Die II (with the spur below the left 1), and is also very, very rough paper. (Ref ACSC 72(2)ja, substituted cliche Die II)

ACSC 70 must correspond to the note in Gibbons about the July and August 1914 printings being line perf 14.2.

I wonder if Gibbons is a little careless when referencing "perf 14" as the note below 20-23 says "most...were perforated 14 by a comb machine (exact gauge 14.25x14)" but, the listings themselves right above that already show "14.25x14." It's almost as if the note existed when the listings just showed "perf 14" and the note wasn't updated when the listings were made more specific?

When you get to the rough paper entry, SG47, it shows "perf 14" without a further note. I suppose the "exact gauge" note might apply there, too...I hadn't assumed it did, since they were specific about 14.25x14 for SG20-23 and not for SG47. Clear as mud, I'm sure.

I should probably pull out some stamps and measure a few.

ETA: A nice Die II appeared while I was typing. For those reading along, Gibbons notes that there are 2 vertical rows of 10 stamps that are Die II, so 20 slightly different variations on the spur can be found. They might not look exactly like the one above, but similar, and in the same place on the stamp.

Here is the Die II spur marked, for anyone who isn't sure what they're looking at:

The "Spur" occurs at angles of 42, 40, 30, and 21 degrees

There are transparent guages produced to employ.

CJD's appears to be 42 degrees

"My" spur is just my markup of Partime's stamp. Interesting to hear that there are Die II gauges. Shouldn't surprise me, I guess.

Your right about Gibbons, I've just been looking at some 5d's and have found 1 that looks like die 1 because there is a second semi circular line just above the E in Postage, however there is no mention of the Die 1 in Gibbons and the only one I can seem to match it with is SG23, all the other 5d's do not have this line and I assume are SG130 ??
See poor photo below

I agree with SG23 on the left and SG130 on the right (without regard to any varieties). There isn't a Die II option showing for SG23 so all SG23s will look more or less like yours, according to Gibbons; they didn't need to go back and call them Die I when Die II came along.

The outer border around the vignette is gone in Die II. Among other things, the "5" shapes are quite different from SG23.

It depends on the catalogue, but SG Commonwealth and Empire uses steps of .5 (see introduction). Thus, just under 14.25 x 14 and just under 14.25, both, would be 14.
It appears they are stating that most were comb 14 rather than line 14.
Since there is some slight difference between the line 14 (= just under 14.25) and comb 14 (= just under 14.25 x 14), they appear to have chosen to give more precise measurements. It would have been clearer if they had stated "most ... were perforated 14.25 x 14 by a comb machine." You might be correct this was an oversight when, at some time, they added the precise gauges.

They are equally messy when it comes to the dies for these stamps. Above SG20, basically, they deny there exists a die II for the 1d stamp. What was known as die II has been shown to be due to a defective roller die. They, then, continue to discern dies I and II for this stamp.
Above SG85, they describe the new dies and refer to that remark above SG20. However, for the 5d there appears to be a new die. They draw attention to the shape of the figure '5' but appear to overlook the outer border (at least in the 2007 edition).

Cjd thanks for confirming sg 23 and 130

Sorry to be a pain, but could anyone confirm that the left hand one is die 2 and the right hand one is die 1

Die 1: Frame 25.6 mm heigh. Left-hand frame line thick and uneven behind kangaroo. Pearls in crown vary in size.
Die 2: Frame 25.6 mm heigh. Left-hand frame line thin and even. Pearls in crown are all the same size.
Die 3: Frame 25.1 mm heigh. Lettering and figures bolder than die I.

It looks like the left-hand one is die 3, the right-hand one could be either die 1 or die 2, depending on the pearls in the crown and the left-hand frame line behind the kangaroo.

Edit for clarity: SG lists three dies.

It may matter which catalog you are using. Scott states that the thin numeral 2 (your picture on the right) is the Die 1. The thick numeral 2 is Die 2.

ACSC states that Die I (electrotype plate) and Die II (steel plates) both have the thin numeral 2's. There are some other features that differentiate the two. Die III is the thick numeral 2, as shown in your picture.

Can we see the complete stamps for the 2d question, please?