Ceylon S.g. #153 1885 ?????

Tony,

there were various types of the Colombo A which were used until the end of the century,

see here for a few examples,

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ceylon-70-O...047675.l2557

Pagoda

Would any of the pundits here condescend to answer a simple question posted 2 days ago and still being completely ignored! (Just in case let me repeat it again to minimize your efforts: Please could you explain in more details why the stamp shown is worthless. Doesn't the word postage imply it is eligible for postal use, not only as revenue? Also why do SG and Scott value such stamps as used as well, yet there is no mention it has to be pen cancelled)Thank you all in advance.

collg.

To me it is worthless is because it is not a highly catalogued stamp, it has a very bad thin, the fact that it has a pen cancel and a postal cancel doesn't come into the equation.

Pagoda

Just saw this exciting exchange of information. As has been discussed, but not yet disclosed, is the watermark. If it is a CA, then the value automatically drops to about US$15, if in perfect condition.

For fun, here's my Colombo "A" on a completely different stamp. (Value ... US$0.20 tops)

Thank you, pagoda!
My question though is not the value (I agree with everything mentioned here concerning the condition of that stamp and its Wk being Crown CA). I wanted to tackle a broader issue (see my question in the post above), this still remains to be answered.

collg.,

re.

" Doesn't the word postage imply it is eligible for postal use, not only as revenue? Also why do SG and Scott value such stamps as used as well, yet there is no mention it has to be pen cancelled)Thank you all in advance. ".

Gibbons & Scotts catalog the stamp as mint or postally used. If it is pen cancelled it is usually for revenue purposes and is then worth a fraction of postally used. If the pen cancel is postal then there is very little deduction but that all depends on the item and the marking,

Pagoda

Thank you, pagoda, for the reply. Now I see the point. I actually know this. I was simply confused by the ambiguity of the phrase "a postal cancel on top of a stamp used for revenue usage"