Help Identify - King George Stamp War Tax

Hello guys,

I acquired this stamp recently, but not sure if it's MR4 or MR4a? What is the difference between MR4 and MR4a? Could you please advise?

I plan to sell this never hinged stamp and I need to be sure.

Thanks.

Die number 1 which is MR4a has a colored line between two white lines below the large letter T, Die 2 MR4 the right half of the colored line is replaced by two short diagonal lines and five small dots. Hope that helps!

I can't be sure but it looks like you have MR4.

Definitely MR4, as seen with the dash lines below the large T

My guess: this sure does not look like a mint NH stamp to me.

Here are close up images of the two dies

Chimo

Bujutsu

Stamp looks like a re-gum from here

"Re-gummed"? Hmm.

The stamp looks used to me, in which case gum (or 'never hinged' as noted by the original post) does not apply.

stanyko: is the stamp mint or used?

Thanks for the pic Bujutsu, just learned something new today :)

I'm confused. How can you guys tell if it has been hinged or regummed by only looking at the face of the stamp? Or are you being facetious?

Thank you guys for help. Now it's clear to me. I know the stamp is not in the best condition (I bought it like that already), but was never used, neither hinged.

stanyko: can you show a scan of the back of the stamp (with the gum)?

I agree with all members above who said it was a Die II (MR4) after looking at the large closeups above of the two different Dies. Having MR4a (Die I) seems harder to find and to get as it is a much more expensive stamp than MR4 (Die II). I am confused about one thing in the Unitrade Canada specialized catalogue. The date for Die II is listed as earlier than for Die I. One would think that it would be the other way around since Die I must have been earlier than Die II in numerical order.

This stamp is a re-gum, why? Copy the stamp and paste on word perfect. Blow it up, and you can see the perf fibres all matted up from the re-gum, especially on the top left side.

I must be missing something here?

To me, it looks like a stamp that has been handled all too often (?)

Chimo

Bujutsu

Hi jogil,

In answer to your question:




The Admiral Issue of Canada book by George C. Marler (pages 449-451) does not state when this stamp was officially issued, but provides the engraving and approval dates.

Marler states that Plate #1 and #2 engraved on December 17th, 1915 and approved December 18th, 1915 were the only Die I plates printed.

They must have had problems, as the next plate to be engraved was #15 on March 10th, 1916 and approved on July 26th, 1916. Then they continued to engrave Plates #16 to 60 (inclusive) from August 14th, 1916 until March 15th, 1918.

In Unitrade it states that the earliest the MR4 stamp was released was August 29, 1916. At this time, although they had Plates #1-2 (Die I) and Plates #15-20 (Die II) approved, they released the Die II ones first (August 29, 1916) and then the Die I later (September 16, 1916).

Or possibly they released the Die I and Die II stamps at the same time, but the earliest usage that has been seen places the Die II earlier!

- stamporator -

Is the purple on the top right some of the cancel remaining on this washed,used,beat up,regummed stamp?