'roo 6d Sg38A Die IIa

I am going through some of my father's stamps, preparing them for disposal and came up what looks very much like the Die IIA version of this stamp. Before I make an idiot of myself (again, may I say!) on ebay, I would welcome any comments that you may have.

Below is an image of the stamp, plus a blow-up of the Die IIA break in the inner frame.

Easy to make an idiot of oneself with early Australia.
It's just a learning curve.

I shy away from the 'roo's.
it looks like you may have it OK (but don't take my word for it)
Must have a 3rd watermark
Cooke plates, but printed by Harrison
Mesh of paper vertical

ACSC 1980

You may wish to include the text in your ebay ad
"Believe it to be "Aust; ACSC #K16c" ....... or similar verbiage.

Definitely a Die 2B. Top inner frame at right corner lines do not meet, no Queensland break, broken/missing shade lines above value tablet are clear indicators of the Die 2B. To be a substituted cliche there must be an outer frame break as well as the inner one.

Recommend reading the thread on Stampboards for more information on the 6d Die 2A http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopi...5115#p483937

Regards
Frank

Thanks Frank,
I learnt something new.




Hmm, I found the scans horrid,

Looking at the Itma's scan, I think I can see the very faint break in the upper
frame above "ST"
I cannot find confirmation of the break in the outer frame as well for the 2A

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

I guess that makes it SG38c Die 2b 23/7/1921 Bright Ultra.
check for orientation of Wmk?

Thanks to all. I see now that it is Die IIB. ASCS cautions that the break in the upper outer frame is often inked in. And if the 23 in the postmark is the year, then than is consistent with the earliest known date of use of 6d Die IIB of July 1921. Also, the watermark doesn't contain the marginal border that the Die IIA should have. (I had only seen this previously only on KGV sidefaces.)

On the subject of identifying Die IIA, a break in the outer left frame is not a requirement. Both ASCS and SG show a very definitely unbroken outer frame.

Rod222: It's nice to see someone else use an old ACSC. I have a 1988 and a 1996 edition. (BTW, the stamp in your scan from ACSC is now numbered 19, rather than K16.) I prefer the 1988 version as the stamps are shown in colour, which makes it easier to find something if you don't know it's date, and it covers as much of the decimal era as I am interested in. The 1996 version is totally B&W and stops with the pre-decimals. I also have somewhere among my father's stuff, an ACSC from about 1948. It was less than a half inch thick back then.

Also, I never seem to be happy about my scans, even though I use my scanner's max resolution of 1200 bpi. Or perhaps I should scan at a lower resolution such that I don't need to alter the image file to get it under the 22kb limit imposed by this site. I should try some experiments with the setting to see it then can be crispened up.

Another Frank.

Hi Another Frank,
that was an interesting journey,
I learnt a lot about my native Aussie stamps.




A lot of us employ "Epson Perfection" dedicated scanners.

Opinion:
1200dpi is overkill, for good clear crisp scans for the average collector, including flyspecking 600dpi may be your best avenue.

This board's limit is 200k

600dpi for an average stamp will post here easily.

I scan a full A4 page at 200dpi, which ends at around 360-420 Kb
then run it through the "image optimiser"

itma



Yes, that is correct for the ordinary Die 2A but here we are talking about a substituted cliche with a stupid name (it is not a Die 2A but is a Die 2). There are two substituted cliches made from the same Die - one is the 2d Kangaroo and of course the other is the subject of this thread. Both of these substituted cliches require the presence of the outer and inner frame breaks to qualify as substituted cliches.

Regards
Frank