Catalogue Number & Cv Sought For Victoria 1/2-D Rose (C. 1900)

I'm wondering if someone who has a specialised catalogue for Victorian stamps can help me. I'm currently trying to identify this unusual example of the 1/2d rose stamp. As the pencil notations of a previous owner state, the stamp is unwatermarked and has perf 12.5 X 10. I can't find either attribute in my Scott catalogue, which is all I have for Australian States stamps. A listing for both wmk and perfs or, if no such listing exists, either wmk or perfs would be greatly appreciated.

My (old) SG BC catalogue lists two issues of this:

1887-96, in pink with three subsidiary colour varieties, wmk V over crown, sideways.
1896-99, in light scarlet, with two subsidiary colour varieties, different V over crown wmk, sideways.

Perf 12 1/2 x 10 and no wmk aren't listed.

Thanks for looking, GeoffHa.

I await word from someone who perhaps has the Brusden White States catalogue. It's also old, though.

I suspect that a great many perf varieties for Victorian stamps remain to be catalogued. I've seen a number listed on a major professional auction site, Prestige Philatley, but the stamps never sell because, so I would assume, people don't want to spend a lot of money on stamps that aren't listed in their catalogues.

Shouldn't that be Perf. 10x12 1/2.

Yes, it should. I was just following what the previous owner wrote on the margin.

Hi JiJam.
I'd be a bit careful with this item.
The printing looks off, the overall length of the stamp is odd (perf. to perf.) and, as far as I know, Victoria never used a 10 gauge perf. machine (I don't think they had one). Possibly a reprint using the original plates? Just guessing. Gibbons (though not the total authority he would like to think) doesn't mention any issues without some watermark.
If you wish, you may try contacting Les Molnar at "http://www.stampsofvictoria.com/index.php"

Cheers

Les Molnar is like most of these people - he never replies.

I don't see anything the least bit odd about this stamp. It sounds to me like you're just trying to debunk my find.

Even a reprint with original plates would be something, but Australian reprints are almost invariably marked thus.

I don't think anyone would 'fake' such a low value stamp as a halfpenny stamp. Anyone with the skills to do it so well would direct their energies into higher value, more profitable stamps - and they'd probably be wise enough not to use a perforation gauge which is entirely unknown (as you say a 10 is). They'd be so much better off faking a compound or other rare perf variety that is actually listed in the catalogues - that way, they'd almost certainly be able to sell a convincing forgery.

As for examples without watermark not being known, new discoveries are being made in Australian philately all the time. Not too long ago, a 1d red KGV with a sideways watermark was discovered. According to the newspaper report I read, the owner failed to sell it on ebay for 99 cents because he was told it was 'impossible.' It's since been certified and, apparently, sold for many thousands.

A NSW 4d Captain Cook exists unwatermarked as a result of an emergency printing. I think I read that only 1 sheet is known to survive from this printing and no used copies are known at all. Something like that could be the case here.

I would imagine that there was considerable chaos when the Commonwealth took over stamp production from the states and that's the period this stamp dates from. It's conceivable, for instance, that a perforation gauge 10 was tested. This stamp could be a survivor from a trial printing. Who knows?

Is the item on thin paper or much heavier paper,

Pagoda

pagoda, the paper is neither especially thick nor thin. It just seems like ordinary stamp paper to me.

It has toned, original gum on the reverse.

Finally found my ancient (1990) Brusden White & there's no reference there to perf 10. Have you checked the Aussie Stamp Forum, there's bound to be someone there who can help

Have you actually measured the perforations? It's possible that 10 x 12 1/2 isn't correct. It's obviously a comb perforation, were there other issues in that era using a comb? It could have been an experiment...

Can we see a picture of the back, please? I'm curious to see what the gum looks like.

What methods have you used to look for a watermark? (I'm assuming you are not relying on the marginal notation.) On these landscape stamps, the design is rotated 90 degrees vis-à-vis the sheet of paper, resulting in the sideways watermark. I'm guessing this stamp, if it is legitimate, would have been at the top right corner of the sheet. Could it have missed the watermark, or caught it centered way low? Still doesn't explain the compound comb perfs.

I don't think there would have been much added confusion in the postal system when they were printing these in pinks/reds/scarlets. Hadn't they switched to emeralds and greens a couple years before the switch to Commonwealth stamps?

A possibility I haven't seen ventilated yet, but which deserves attention I would have thought, is that the stamp is a purely Stamp Duty (as inscribed) type, issued after the type had ceased to be used for postage also.

After the Commonwealth postage stamps were issued, and Victoria went back to purely revenue stamps, they adopted a relatively basic numeral-in-circle-with-pearls design, inscribed Victoria | Stamp Duty. No monarch and, as far as I know, no halfpenny value except as an overprint until 1920?

I'm sure you're right, CJD, but that leaves a gap between when the ½d STAMP DUTY postal fiscals were superseded in 1901 and the the first Commonwealth issues in 1913.

Cooke was appointed Commonwealth printer in 1909 from Adelaide. If memory serves, he brought some of his equipment across to Melbourne when he was appointed. South Australia did have a gauge 10 perforating device: perhaps he brought it with him, and used it on Victorian duty stamps.

I'm only on my second cup of coffee this morning, and I'm having a hard time getting my arms around this. Here is what I think I know:

From 1901 to 1912, the 1/2d postage stamps inscribed Victoria were the diminutive little blue-green fellas. I don't know what Australian collectors call them, but I would call them green fleas.



The state revenues of Victoria starting in 1902 were in this general design, which was used for decades:
(image from a post by wert, earlier this year)

I hesitate in typing this, Tony, because I'm pretty sure you've forgotten more about Australian stamps than I ever knew in the first place, but I can't see an opportunity for a gap in that era that could have been filled by jj2's stamp.

(If I'm missing something obvious, please be gentle in pointing it out. )