The Stamps Of Australia : On Steiner Pages.

Query: Is a stamp cancelled on a FDC still valid for postage ?
(Presumably it hasn't carried out any duty)

I received this cover this morning from ebay, 1979 FDC Uprated 81c to qualify for the $1 domstic rate.
Is this legal? or has sender denied Australia Post 19c?

Cover has not been Postmarked with this use.

Australian Newspaper July 1st 1913

Hi Rod



The extra stamps were put onto the envelope long after the issue of the FDC. The FDC shows the 1979 International Year of the Child.

The reason why the stamps showing the two Olympic athletes and the basket of flowers not being cancelled were issued in 1976 and 1992 respectively and were placed onto the envelope by the individual who sold the FDC.

It's impossible to have an FDC with a cancellation date of 1979 issued with stamps that were printed 3 years prior and 13 years later.

Rob

Sorry Rob, you misunderstood me.
Perhaps my explanation was wanting.

I understand what you explained.

Here's what happened, then I want to know if it is legal.............

I get a FDC 1974 out of my shoebox. It has a 20c stamp on it, cancelled, or, if you will, with a Pictormark. (Unaddressed FDC)

The current domestic rate is $1
So I put 80c stamps on the cover, and mail it.
Is that legal? / Valid?

That is what the ebay vendor, did when he sent me the cover
It passed through OK

My Personal Automatic Teller Machine.

Australia Post
Form Ticket # 8836096
Stiff Card
circa 2010

Australia
Year 2007 Summary

All Stamps, all variations......>$1,000

Sorry Rod, my mind must have been elsewhere, I see what you are saying.

The envelope is still valid and would still be sent, though with Australia Post as per their standard process due to insufficient postage the postal service will bill the sender for the missing 20 cents (rounded to the nearest cent plus a $1.50 administration fee) by sending a card to the senders address or Post Office address.

It would have been certainly a more costlier option for you but the mail would still arrive at its destination; if there is no return address on the envelope the letter most likely would not be sent as there would be no avenue for the Post Office to recoup the insufficient postage plus costs.

Rob

Hi Rob,
Interesting.

If it were valid, then I would have 1000 envelopes I could use, as part-postage to send my ebay lots.
I like FDC's, the envelopes are quite substantial and rigid.

So, when one buys an unaddressed FDC, with Pictormark, one has paid for a cover that has not carried out any postal service, in other words, a CTO (Cancelled to order)

A shame, the FDC make colourful covers, in the mail.

FDC's now have less appeal, than ever.

FDC's with Pictormarks.

Correct.

For the record.
2 new possible recurring flaws in the "Kangaroo and Map" Issue.
These have been seen, and noted on ebay, but not recorded in the ACSC.

Identified by a colleague, who specialises in the K&M. Not my work.
Both appear to be Wmk 10 (narrow crown,narrowA)
The A&H Perfin, is Anthony Hordern Sydney.

Scott #50 9d 1915 "Collar on Kangaroo"



Sc#50 1915 9d "Flaw on R of Australia"
Parcel Post cancellation.
PERFIN : Anthony Hordern & Sons (Sydney)

rod222 wrote



These are not new and have been known about for many years. Especially by Banwell and Parsons who wrote the plating guide for 9d Roos in 2004. If your colleague does not know about this publication then he does not specialise in Roos. If he does know of it then he is making false claims.

The so called collar is present in just about every Roo printed and is simply a general feature caused by the way in which the Master Die was engraved. It is sometimes emphasised in well inked copies and is not specific to any value or cliche - in other words it can appear anywhere and not in a particular position.

The other Roo with the flaw on R is well described by Banwell and Parsons and is definfinitely not new.

The watermark you describe is generally known by knowledgeable collectors as Third Watermark.

ebay is not a good source to quote for descriptions of Roos as they are often made by unscrupulous sellers enhancing their sales. Just because something is not listed in ACSC does not mean that it is not a known flaw. A listing in ACSC generally indicates those varieties which are sought after by collectors and is a guide to market value.

Perhaps you should identify your sources in future and we can assess their value.

By the way, I specialise in the 9d Roos and am presently compiling some research into the substituted cliches. I am also writing a paper on the Master Die and the die flaws.

Regards
Frank

I collect for fun and enjoyment, to learn, and help others.
Your post comes across as confrontational,
I have no interest in what you have to say further.

1991
Steiner Page 1.



Personal Page
(Steiner does not seem to include Framas)
Steiner Style Page 1A.

1991
Steiner Page 2.



1991
Steiner Page 3.