The Stamps Of Australia : On Steiner Pages.

Wow! Steve,
she must have some great connections.

Was a fabulous game DEMONS romped home.
I bet she was excited, the noise was deafening by all accounts.

The Aussie Wallabies (Rugby) are winning, as is my NRL (Rugby) team,
the Panthers.
A rare but enjoyable time.

61,000 people at the West Australian oval

Spotlight on the Library.
"101 Reasons"
Richard C Peck
Auxilliary Markings NEW SOUTH WALES 1982-1983 150 Pages



My Mum, bless her, always said it was rude to point....

Bibliography.
Missing from the Library.
"First World War Patriotic Labels, Australia and New Zealand"
Alan Jackson

Phoenix Auctions 2021

Frank and Free
Hans Karman
Markings and Franks Stamps of the Australian Colonies.
This Edition Includes
Western Australia
Van Diemen's Land
Victoria

Victoria Sc#218 (There is no longer a Scott #217)
United States Dealer Frank L Teixeira, Kansas and Louisiana.



--------------------

Seek assistance reading Avery, Edwards, Ingles and Purves (Tasmania)
What Postmark attracts the RRRR rating here

Due to the Font size and Arc distance, I would firstly assume this to be SCOTTSDALE WEST, however would it also be an altered SCOTTSDALE
("WEST" burnished out) ?
The brace have "circle stops"
Opinions please.

Is LIETINNA the RRRR?

1910 Miss Coleman Postmistress, whom probably cancelled this stamp.

The Above authors, Page 102 (Part ll)

Rod222,
Your postmark (1910) is the Scottsdale (ii) on your list, with the WEST removed, and was in use from 1901 until 1924. It is not rated as scarce or rare.

The RRRR postmark is Scottsdale West (now rated as 5R). Scottsdale West opened in 1891 and was closed in 1901.

Lietinna postmarks are not rated as rare until the 1930's.

Source: 'Tasmanian Postal History: The Post Offices and their Datestamps', John Hardinge, 2018.

There is great joy, when a query is solved so eloquently.
Thank you very much FDS.

Just for the record, Scottsdale has had a few name changes,
previously ELLESMERE

"G'day Mate"
Welcome to Scottsdale.

Seek Perforation guage help.
I have this at Perf 12 x 12
Absolutely sure not Perf 11.5 on sides.
Apparently only comes in Comb 12 x 11.5

Can someone cut off the top perforations, and align them with the left or right hand side perfs please?

Now the Wmk ( I make it Sc#55) which differs from Brusden White
my "NSW" have curled egdes on the N and W, nothing sharp like BW
Look at the W position in BW, totally different.

Scott#106 1899 6d QV Orange Wmk55 INVERTED Perf Guage 12 x 12

Rod,

There are three Crown over NSW types. The first is much more rounded and (according to SG) appeared only up to the late 1880s (the exceptions are to 5d diadem and the 3d). The type II and type III were different only in the distance between the base of the crown and the letters NSW (either 2mm in type 1 or 1mm in type 2). The sharp edges of the BW illustration is that it is an artistic impression of the watermark, not an image. The watermark was formed from wire and in real life will be much less sharp than the image you showed above.

Assuming the second image is the watermark of the actual stamp, yours will be SG297g. Perfs could be one of the following combinations, 11 x 11.8, 11.8 x 11.5 or 11.8 x 11.8.

I only use the Stanley Gibbons Instanta gauge to measure perfs.

In the newer editions of ACSC there is an explanation as to why 11½, 12 has been used for both the 11.5 and 11.8 gauges. They are too hard to tell apart on single stamps. Gibbons have done this for years. You can tell them apart by placing a stamp known to be 11.8 against a stamp known to be 11.5. The 11.5 gauge machine was altered for other use in October, 1902. Stamps perforated after this date can only be 11.8, despite what any older catalogue or handbook may state.

Right, thanks John, then Scott trumps Brusden White for image




Myself also. I'll try looking at 11.8, and can accept that as 12
albeit at 12, the teeth lined up perfectly.

If that be the case, 11.5 guage in Scott and Brusden White, is either an error, or requires explanation.

Result:
My stamp lines up perfectly also at 11.8

If both catalogues quote comb 11.5 that's fine, but my argument is 11.8
is closer to 12 than 11.5


Compliments to Stanley Gibbons, for being more accurate than either Scott or Brusden White.

Rod,

Prior to October, 1902, either 11.8 or 11.5 could be correct.

A 1st series 4d Australian postage due is a good stamp to check with 11.8 in the horizontal, 11.5 in the vertical. A horizontal pair would be better.


John

Don

Wow!
Thanks Don
So reading up from bottom, there occurs differences after 8 or so punctures, indicating there is a differing guage, no matter how slight.

12 x 11.8 would be, I'd say confirmed by you image.

Thanks for spending time on my query

Rod,

The true gauge of the '12' is 11.8. The spacing of the pins was not consistent. In patches, 11.8 can measure closer to 11.5 and vice versa.




11.8 in the horizontal, 11.5 in the vertical.