Very Rare 1949-1950 Coat-Of-Arms Combination

Rob:

Could you post images of the backs of the normal and thin stamp (one value is probably enough) so that we can get idea of the difference from this perspective.

thanks,Frank.

Hi Frank

All the Coat-of-Arms were printed on thin paper, it is the thickness of that paper (or should I say the thinnest of the paper, which makes these stamps elevate from scarce to very scarce and scarce to very rare). The 5/-, 10/-, £1 & £2 were printed on thin 0.09mm watermarked paper (W.C.G. McCracken used thin paper opposed to John Ash's earlier thick paper); the very thin stamps were printed on 0.08mm paper allowing more absorption of the ink and showing a more vivid display of colour and reverse design at the back.

I thought it best to show the same stamps in the original 0.09mm thickness which is the normal thickness when issued on April 11, 1949 and January 16, 1950 respectively (the same stamps shown earlier).

The difference is visually spectacular.



Left to Right

ACSC 268a) 1949. Commonwealth Coat of Arms. 5/-. Perforation 14½ x 14. Very thin paper (0.08mm). C of A watermark. Deep Carmine
ACSC 268A) 1949. Commonwealth Coat of Arms. 5/-. Perforation 14½ x 14. Thin paper (0.09mm) C of A watermark. Carmine
ACSC 271a) 1950. Commonwealth Coat of Arms. £2. Perforation 14½ x 14. Very thin paper (0.08mm). C of A watermark. Deep Green
ACSC 271A) 1950. Commonwealth Coat of Arms. £2. Perforation 14½ x 14. Thin paper (0.09mm). C of A watermark. Green

Thanks, Rob. I was interested in seeing the difference in transparency. I got this set from my father (less the 2pounds - he was a bit of a purist and didn't believe it had a postal use) but they are totally enclosed in his version of hingeless mounts but I plan to take a look at them sometime soon. Hopefully, the 5/- stamp will be nice and transparent.

Hi Frank

Good luck, and I'm happy to have been of some assistance in displaying the difference in thin papers.

Rob

Commonwealth Catalog 18th edition only lists the 5/- on thin paper. They footnote that various thicknesses of paper can be found on this issue, but none are given separate listings. Their rule of thumb has been that if they have difficulty assigning an issue to a specific printing, it doesn't get catalog status (at least while Dickon Pollard/Murray Payne published it).

There is at least a 19th edition which I thought I owned however I can't put my hands on it. Wonder if they added new listings for this set.

Shermae,

The listings come from the Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Catalogue which digs much deeper than your reference.

My information comes from the 2019 edition of the Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Catalogue (ACSC). This is a very detailed catalogue of all pre-decimal stamps and decimal stamps up to 2002. Other catalogues such as the SG and Scott's catalogues are useless when it comes to Australian stamps.

Thanks very much Rob and 64. I've accumulated some examples from this issue and am now excited to sort them, even if I don't have the ACSC.

Hi shermae

I've added more shades and a second £2 thin paper to the collection, here is the collection to date.



Rob

Hi Rob041256,

My son and I were out hunting for ½d orange Kangaroo covers when we came across the following from the Australian dealer Richard Juzwin:

https://richardjuzwin.com.au/produc...c/?sku=32068



You have this in your collection too?

If a 10/- with the SPECIMEN overprint is already scarce, then a 10/- with a variety overprint ... WOW!

Hi Prexie3c

No I don't have that one, though it would be easy for me to obtain it, but it's a beauty. I was only speaking to Andy about that particular stamp on Friday afternoon, but had no intention of buying it yet. At the moment I have my eyes on a set of stamps of great rarity, a full plate proof set of the Coat-of-Arms, There is about 6 sets in existence and worth a lot more than the 10/- "IM" issue.

I have seen on a Facebook group a 10/- and £2 Coat-of-Arms with the "IM" error, as these stamps do not have a certificate they could well be forgeries, the "IM" error is extremely easy to forge. A used version of the "IM" is worth about $4,000 with certificate.

The stamp on the Juzwin website is MUH, as nearly all are hinged or used, the MUH is quite a trophy if anyone purchases it.

The 10/- overprint is only scarce in MUH.

Rob

I look forward to you posting the full plate proof set of the Coat-of-Arms here on this forum for us to drool over when you acquire it, Rob041256.



This is interesting - used versions of the Coat-of-Arms SPECIMEN stamps. I suppose these were used in error?

Hi Prexie3c

When I acquire them I definitely will show the set. As far as I know the specimens were not used in error, some people did use the specimen stamps for postage and the post office did not see any problem with it, the $4,000 also applies to MLH stamps.

I've seen a few specimen stamps, including the £1 1938 KGVI coronation postally used. The specimens of the KGVI coronation and the Coat-of-Arms were not made in the year of stamp issue, for example the £1 coronation specimen was printed in April 1944 (totalling 2,860 stamps) and the £2 Coat-of-Arms specimens was issued between July 1953 to August 1963 (totalling 2,380 stamps).

Rob