| Author |
Replies: 7 / Views: 1,661 |
|
|
Moderator

United States
5094 Posts |
|
|
I warned you it was an ugly stamp, but it is the oldest Antigua in my collection, and I am interested in a positive ID. Can't see any watermark, and the rough perforation is approximately 15 1/2 on the right side. Does the cancellation help to narrow down the year? I'm thinking Scott #1, 1862, mostly due to the rough perforations in the 14-16 range, but could be Scott #4 if I could locate the Star watermark. Thanks in advance. 
|
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
Australia
38679 Posts |
|
|
Bad Example ?  Looks fine to me, a lovely stamp. Pass it my way if it gets too much. Std A02 Antigua pmk Looks to me like SG10 yellow green of course the wmk is your issue. What dpi did you scan it at? I can run EZPerf over it. |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Moderator

United States
5094 Posts |
|
|
Hi Rod. Scanned at 1200 dpi then used Free Image Optimizer. I couldn't find a Yellow Green in my Scott's until you mentioned, then located Scott 4a from 1863-67 with Star watermark. All of the other colors appear to be Blue Green. I'll try again to locate the watermark tomorrow, but the color may already determine the stamp. Thanks for the offer of giving it a new home, but I think I'll keep it for now.  |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
Australia
38679 Posts |
|
|
Thanks, been optimised, so I cannot assist. be aware "SG#8 shades, verge on yellow green" as well. A good philatelist may know what other world stamps would carry the same watermark, and whether it exists "not evident" in border positioned stamps. We should be respectful to our stamps, if it was the last one in the world, it wouldn't be a "bad example"  |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
3547 Posts |
|
|
Gibbons has a note: "Caution is need in buying No.10 as some of the shades of No.8 verge on yellow-green." SG 8 is described as 'green (shades)'.
As the current Gibbons rates SG 10 (yellow-green) at £95 used, and SG 8 at £26, Murphy's Law would suggest that this stamp is an SG 8 with a barely visible watermark. |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Moderator

United States
5094 Posts |
|
|
Rod, Tony. Thanks for your help. It is always fun to post questions late at night here in the States, and then get the Australian crew working on the issue, and then waking up to see some answers.
Under a very bright light and using watermark fluid, it is still not possible to find any indication of the 6 pointed Star, nor the CC Crown watermark. In addition, when compared to my color gauge, I have to admit that the scanner did not do justice, and it is, indeed, a Blue-Green shade, trending toward a dark green. Therefore, I'm going to file it away as an 1862 variety, known as Scott #1 in my books.
As with all of my stamps, they are treated with great respect (unless the grand daughter gets into the collection behind my back). If and when a better copy comes along, I may move this to a lower position. Until such time, this one will stay in its proper place as my first stamp in my Antigua collection.
I'll see if I can find some other early Commonwealth stamps to file. Have a great day mates! |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
Australia
38679 Posts |
|
|
For the record: The Star wmk paper was used with stamps of Antigua,Barbados,Grenada,Natal,Queensland,St Lucia,St Vincent, and Turks island.
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
Australia
38679 Posts |
|
|
Quote: Therefore, I'm going to file it away as an 1862 variety, known as Scott #1 in my books.
Hehehehe, beware all you, that ignore Murphy's Law,  I am not confident about your chances. Compared to an SG1 and an SG18 Blue greens.  |
Send note to Staff
|
|
| |
Replies: 7 / Views: 1,661 |
|