Tasmania (Scott# 117)

G'day!

Found these two copies of the 1912 2d Hobart stamp, Surcharged in Red, and noticed something odd.




The top stamp appears to be overprinted on a SC# 104, and the bottom stamp is on a "Redrawn" SC# 114, judging by the width of the design.

(A) Are these both considered #117? or
(B) Did Scott forget to list one of these? or
(C) Is one of these a forgery? (seems like a lot of trouble for a 50¢ stamp) or
(D) Did I find something new?

Thanks,

Al

Is it just my monitor or do the overprints look different, top stamp overprint bolder?

It looks like two different overprints on my monitor also!
Al, maybe you should wait for an Australia expert to chime in. Scott is woefully inadequate on some items, and this may be one of them.

Peter

Thanks guys, and yes the overprints do appear different.

They both measure about 22.5mm left-to-right, but the one on the #104 is at least inked heavier and has sharper edges than the one on the #114. Some of this might be due to the difference in the shade of violet behind them, since the #114 is listed as "bright violet" where the #104 is just plain "violet". So, other than the difference in registration, I suppose they might be considered the same.

Both stamps are watermarked with the Crown and Double-line "A", but the design measurements are definitely consistent with #104 and #114 (32.5mm x 24.5mm and 33.5 x 25mm). So, even if the overprints are the same, they are on different stamps and you would think that should warrant a different catalog number.

So, yeah - I'll wait for some expertise from down-under!

Thanks for the inputs,

Al

I am not expert in these stamps or to be truthful I know practically nothing about them. However, I am lucky enough to own a well respected catalogue on them.

I will be quoting from the Australian Commonwealth Specialists Catalogue (ACSC), Kangaroos and the Early Federal Period, 1901-1912 - 2004 edition by Brusden White which is the most recent published on these stamps.

Collectively this series is known as the Tasmanian Pictorials and they are collected mainly for their circular date stamps.

A bit of history! Until 1901 each Australian State administered its own postal system. In 1901 on the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia the administration of all postal services in Australia became the responsibility of the Commonwealth and all States issues became Commonwealth issues but retained their own characteristics until the issue of the first universal Commonwealth stamp - the Kangaroo and Map series in 1913.

Now I will quote from sections of the above catalogue and I think this will answer the OP.

For the 2d pictorial "This value, together with the 1d, was the first to be printed in Melbourne, in late 1902. All printings up to mid-1907 were made from lithographic plates. Electrotype plates were used from 1907 to 1910, and for the final printings in 1911-1912 these were replaced by two stereotype plates."

For the surcharge "The basic stamps used were the 2d stereotyped Pictorial printed from Plates 3 and 4. The surcharging was performed using two stereotype overprint formes."

" The stereos are differentiated from the electrotypes by being less sharply printed, and by a difference in size - the electrotypes are just over 32mm wide compared to 33-33¾mm for the stereotypes. This difference is due to a scaling difference in the photographic preparation of the two zinc dies, the variation in the stereotypes being the result of differential cooling of the hot stereo metal."

There is no mention of the variation in the overprint so I assume this is just a printing issue.

The used value of the 2d Pictorial is around $10 whilst the surcharged is about $2, so no advantage to forgers.

Regards
Frank

Very interesting, Frank!

...but the top stamp in my image above contradicts the statement in your reference that "The basic stamps used were the 2d stereotyped Pictorial printed from Plates 3 and 4.", because it has the dimensions of an electrotype (Scott #104): "just over 32mm wide compared to 33-33¾mm for the stereotypes." (Scott # 114).

...and it does say that "The surcharging was performed using two stereotype overprint formes." - which would imply a difference - but the paragraph following that in your post is talking about the dimensions of the stamp design, not those of the surcharge overprint.

...bottom line: we still need an answer!

Cheers,

Al

Gibbons notes the size difference and says "Stamps from the stereotyped plate differ from [the electrotype types] ... in the taller, bolder letters of "TASMANIA, in the slope of the mountain in the left background, which is clearly outlined in white, and in the outer vertical frame-line at left, which appears "wavy". Compare [the ONE PENNY surcharge] etc. which are always from this plate."

Thanks tonymacg,

I'm have a hard time figuring out your use of quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets in that quote, but I think the main point it is that the surcharge overprint is always found on the (Scott #114) stereotype plate. My contention is that the top stamp in my original post looks like it does not. Maybe some larger scans would help?

Here are the four versions of this design that I am in possession of, these are a SC# 88, a SC# 97, the questionable SC#117, and the "normal" SC#117. These stamp designs are all of different dimensions, from smallest to largest.














Only the bottom stamp exhibits the "wavy" frame lines, the "redrawn" shading lines in the clouds which make the left mountain look more clearly outlined in white and it is the largest design of the four.

Maybe the 4th stamp is just "stretched" somehow, and unfortunately I don't have a SC# 104 or a 114 to compare them to, but I strongly suspect that the 3rd stamp began as a SC# 104 and the 4th stamp began as a SC#114 before they were overprinted. Perhaps also, the 1913 postmark is a clue - either yea or nay.



Al

Sorry, Al, but I see a wavy left frame line on your third stamp as well. I suspect they're both from the stereotyped plates, the slight difference in size notwithstanding. I'd be more inclined to regard size differences as significant in mint stamps. You can have no idea what has happened to used stamps over the last 100 years, which might account for the difference.

The differences in the surcharges look to be due simply to inking.