GB King Gv Clarifications Needed

GB King Gv clarifications needed

Hello All

Would someone please clue me in about this type stamp or the concept in general.

I use a 1989 Scott book. And the stamp in question is A82.
I am having difficulty measuring the perfs. The 14 1/2 and the 15 perf can look the same.

So my first question is,
Does a watermark always take preference for identification over the perfs ?
For example: if the watermark is #35, is the stamp automatically no. 210 ?
If the watermark is #33, is the stamp no. 159 ? Regardless of how the perfs measure ?

2nd Question.
I have read a definition for typographed but they are just words to me.
Can some please point me to a visual example ( something in color ) that might help me.

How can I distinguish the difference between stamp # 159 1912-13 Perf 15x14 Wmk 33
from stamp # 187 1924 Typographed Perf 15x14 ? ( no Wmk listed )
Is stamp no.187's Wmk the same as stamp no.159's ?
Or is it just the printing method that's different ? and there is no Wmk at all?

3rd Q:
I thought that coil stamps only come perfed on two sides, either horizontally or vertical? But the book list stamp #177 as a 1913 Coil Stamp watermarked #32 with a Perf 15x14.
Can a coil stamp be perfed on all four sides?

4th Q:
Can someone identify the watermark on the back of this stamp.



Here is the front. Can you identify this for me. Perfs are either 14 1/2 x 14 or 15x14.



Thanks
Htx

I can answer question 3 for you. Yes, a coil stamp can be perforated on all four sides, although that does not really happen all that often. The word coil only implies that the stamps were wound on a coil - not necessarily how they were perforated.


Peter

since it is multiple WM it is WM 32

Thank you, Petert4522 and agmasd56 for your quick reply.

Petert4522
I thought the 15x14 coil might mean that one side was perf 15 and the other side perf 14 while the remaining two sides were straight edge ( no perfs ). Thanks for clarification.

agmasd56
I used lighter fluid to try and see the WM but could only determine that it was not WM35. Thought it might be WM 32 or 33 but the fluid evaporates so quickly I could not tell. And after many, many times I just gave up.

How did you do that? Change contrast ? Hue? Saturation? I can see the WM easily now.
I have MS Office Picture Manager. If I can do that, I can do away with the lighter fluid.

htx

In win 10 open the pic with photos
edit
use enhance

Is it only me that sees this stamp as NOT being a Multiple Cypher watermark?
The crowns line up vertically so cannot be a multiple cypher.
Unless the Colonies have different criteria and illustrations to Stanley Gibbons.

Hi HTx,

I agree with scotzm.

This is Scott Wmk. 33 (Crown and GvR) not Scott Wmk. 32 (Crown GvR Multiple).

In SG's language this is SG W 100 (Simple Cypher) not SG 103 (Multiple Cypher).

Two columns of cyphers are visible because the watermark pattern is slightly offset compared to the stamps.

By the way, Scott's convention in their catalogues is that the watermark is not repeated for a set if it is the same as for the previous set in the listing.

Scott also follows this approach when specifying printing method and perforation.

My original thought was that the left side of the stamp in question had a misplaced watermark and showed parts of the letters POSTAGE which was also watermarked into sheets. Better eyes could maybe see.




Edit to add link...
https://goscf.com/t/37093#37093

Hi scotzm,

Yes, I think you're right.

Did you see the nice marginal block that Rog posted ona similar thread on Stampboards:




This gives a very clear example of the POSTAGE letters and the Simple Cypher together.

Have just seen the Stampboards posting. Thought I'd post a link to something roughly similar here of SCF... keeping it in the "family"

yes that is right

Thanks scotzm and nigelc for your help.
I read the links you provided and they were of much assistance in understanding.

So I will list this stamp as 'misplaced watermark'.
But what Scott number should I give it. ? 159 or 187 ?
And since the stamp is an "esoteric item" what might the CV be ?

Thanks
htx

My interest is the Triangular Postmark.
Can anyone decipher "6S" "8S"? If so, where was the information sourced?
Printed matter rate?

S = Farrington Street ?

as these were based on telegraphic codes... BS would be Burntisland in Scotland.

what Scott number should I give it. ?

159
as for value... mint singles go for around 35 uk pounds.
Used and damaged could be tricky to value so I'd guess around £5 UK