Need A GB Expert For King George V Watermarks ??

Hello there I had no idea when I was sorting that the GB stamps I had might be worth somthing.!. So here I go only snag is you have to check the watermarks GRRR... So I've got these up for reviews.




Ok these all have the same type of watermark which looks like #35 but the book says it should be #32 or #33 with more of a cursev type script... I was hoping they are 32 $$ Which they would be 177 &178 but are their coils perf all around? Weird.
Ooo I also found 4 sideways water marks one was a #190 a





Hard to tell without fluid..
Nick





Heres one.

The SG tribe will not recognize Scott watermark numbers, so...

Scott -- description -- SG

32 -- multiple crown/GvR cypher in staggered array -- 103
33 -- same as above, except in vertical/columns -- 100
35 -- crown and block GvR -- 111

That being said, for those stamps with Scott wmk #35, see Great Britain #187-200 and #210-220.

My point is they are watermark 35 and should be 33. Only the 2 pence is correct water mark. I only put it in there to show the sideways watermark.

The two orange 2d stamps you showed should both be wmk35 (block GvR). The background within the oval is solid. The earlier 2d stamp (wmk33) had a background of horizontal lines.

The 2d orange and half d green with the solid background to George's portrait are the later photogravure issues from 1934 on, and will be watermark #35 in Scott, 111 in SG.

My five-year old Gibbons has the half pence photogravure wm sideways at three-and-a-half pounds, and the 2d orange photogravure wm sideways at 60 pounds.

I'm not an expert in KGV watermarks, so I'm not here to argue with you, but...



No, I believe that is incorrect. The Scott listings are a bit confusing, and then there are a few editions of the Scott catalog (I forgot which years) in which there was a illustration ID error in the listings that made it more confusing (it has now been corrected). So you are not the first person who has run into this problem.

Once you have IDed the stamps as wmk35, then either examine the background or measure the perforations to determine whether they are from the 1924(#187-200) or 1934(#210-220) issues.

Be grateful that Scott is not complete. There are actually other printings not listed by Scott, and some of them can be tough to distinguish.

Have fun!

k

Hi Nick
I have scanned these watermarks from a book called "Collect British Stamps" it is the 2002 eidtion, so the prices of the stamps is no longer relevant.
I hope that this is of help to you
Regards
Horamakhet

Thanks everyone. And no worries I am a sponge and love knowledge in any form, which I recieved in wide varieties in my life...LOL. I'm looking at scotts cat 2009 but lets use the gide you have in the pics for this one. I have #357 which is 3rd from the left on the 1st pic a 1 penny red, then I turned it over in the 3rd pic and you can see the watermark... it dosen't match the water mark for #357 which should be 103. It is watermarked with 111. I have some that match the script style, but most of my #104-108 are the print style of 111.

OK, since you are now switching over to the SG catalog, we will work with those numbers instead of the Scott numbers. However, you are repeating the same mistake in your ID process.

Please consider the fact that your stamp is NOT #357 in the Stanley Gibbons catalog because it is not watermarked 103. If it is not watermarked 103, then it is NOT from the first 1914 issue.

You are making the same mistake of insisting the stamp should be from the first 1914 issue, and then puzzling over why it is watermarked 111 instead of 103. The fact that it is watermarked 111 and has a lined background within the oval means it is from the 1924 issue, not the 1914 issue. Therefore, based on the pages shown by Horamkhet, your stamp is #419.

Any of those stamps watermarked 111 must be coming from either the 1924 issue (#418-429) or the 1934 issue (#439-449)

Hope that helps.

By the way, if the watermark on the 2d orange is sideways, then you did make a good find. Unfortunately, I cannot see the watermark at all in your picture of the backside.

k

Keep going, to the next column on that same scan...check out #419 and see if that matches what you have.

YOU GOT ME
In the Scott guide (2009)it doesn't say at top where it usually does for the watermark, but if I look below the 1924 200 it says 188-189 were made on experimental paper with water mark 35 closer spacing letters shorter, rounder. DUH thank you very much and I'm sure to have more GB questions.
And yes it's a shame I can't share the sideways watermark 190a the 2009 says $110. I have photo shop but don't have a negative scanner. I have been looking on e-bay but was hoping to pick one up for less than 20 buck, one will come along soon. I keep checking thrift stores for stamps and a scanner.
Thanks again all
Nick

Yes, if Scott doesn't list watermark, printing, perforation... information in listing header, then the information from the preceding listing applies. I guess they are trying to save ink? -- I don't know. They definitely aren't saving any space by omitting some header info. And then sometimes they list the same watermark, printing... information again and again for a whole sequence of headers!

As I've said before, the only thing Scott is consistent about is at being inconsistent...

Glad that you figured it out!

k