Help ID Australian 4d Orange, Scott 31

Here is an interesting plate variety that I just located. I can't locate it in ACSC. It appears closest to ACSC 110(2)e, but not quite. Any help from the Aussie group?

Wow! that's a cracker.
Opinion:
Not Listed, should be Single Wmk Type 2, P14.25 x 14 Comb
Guess: 110F = Buff Orange?
Wmk Inverted?

You also have a "left over" ? like 112da, that dark line under the point of the shield, has a white line.

It may have been damage after ACSC 110(2)e, but I doubt it, looks too radical to me.
A Great Find, I look forward to anyone else identifying it.

I'll get out my 4d duplicates now.

Watermark is not inverted and my color skills are questionable at best with the oranges. I'll happily wait for more opinions. Thanks for looking

Postmark possibly ADELAIDE Sth AUST

This is an odd one. I have more to look through next weekend. I'll look for the 112da lead a little more carefully. Thanks.

I don't see like that befor

I am tending towards an EFO, at least for the top of the damage.
I would be putting it under UV light see if that brings up any damage to the paper.

The miss shapen "O" and the extra bar on the F is another thing.

I will give that a try this upcoming weekend. There may be scrapes, as evidenced on the back of the tail of the kangaroo and below the Emu, which are both at roughly the same angle. The top of the "F" does look a bit iffy, but the line making it an "E" is the most interesting.

Hi Partime

In the newest edition of the ACSC (2015) relating to the KG V issues your orange 4d is under ACSC 110(2), referring to "Plate 2", and was printed circa 1919-1921. The plate flaw in the image shown is of the blue 4d (ACSC 112(2)eb)) it is in the final state (late state) of the plate deteriorating.

Your stamp seems to be in the early or intermediate state of the plate deteriorating, the late state of the orange 4d is catalogued at, and I quote "ACSC 110(2)eb) – later printing (deteriorates)" unquote, and is priced at AU$1,000 MUH and AU$400 on cover, yours is unlisted, I wouldn't pass this stamp off as a common fault, far from it, as it is a plate flaw it may be a scarce or rare variety.

The early state is obviously much more valuable than the intermediate and late state of deterioration, but as the prices given is for MUH and on cover, I have no idea what the value would be for an unlisted used stamp, though I would expect it to rate more than a passing interest to a collector of plate flaws and the price to match it.

As it is used and not mentioned in the ACSC that one may or does exist it is impossible to tell if it is a one-of-a-kind which would give the stamp rare status, and very valuable.

Whether it be a one-of-a-kind or not, if damaged by tears (even repairs), thins, heavy hinge remnants, stains, heavy rust or foxing, this would have a very negative effect on the stamp even if unique.

A scan of the reverse is required before people start guessing games about what it might be.

Regards
Frank

I will be able to do a much better front scan, UV, and reverse scan this upcoming weekend. I did see that reference to the 112(2)eb but immediately ignored it since it was for the Blue, not the orange 110(2) version.

Thanks again for everyone's comments.

I will send the image to a stamp expert and should get the details sometime today.

Great. Looking forward to their comments.

Hi Partime

Apologies for the error of my last post. After posting an image of your stamp he rang me and said that it is a flaw he has never seen before, he believes it may be a one-of-a-kind, but will know for sure when he looks further into it and will give me the full run down on the stamp (I get all my stamps from him).

He was meant to contact me in the afternoon, but I was told by a staff member that he was called out on business; I will ring him in the morning and should be able to retrieve the information for you.

Even though watermarks have no relevance with plate flaws, it would be interesting to know if your stamp has a normal watermark or the scarce inverted watermark.

The inverted watermark is catalogued at $30 used, and the normal at $15 used (in Aussie dollars).

Also see if is printed on thin paper, the reverse will show whether it is or not. In the ACSC it only lists lightly hinged copies at $250, but thin papers are always scarce and very desirable.

Scarce is a confusing status, you can have a stamp worth $80 and another of the same value with a status of rare; I have both.

I also have a stamp classified as very scarce and the replacement cost would be nearly $2,000, and I have another classified as rare with the same replacement cost.

Stamps are very interesting, the older the more interesting, but when it comes to grading and classifying prepare for a migraine.

Rob

Rob,

Thanks very much for your interest and encouragement on this stamp. It would be nice to have a rare item in my collection, irrespective of the perceived value.

I will do more analysis and scanning this weekend. I do remember doing an adequate job, so I am almost positive that the watermark is normal (not inverted). As far as paper quality and hinges or remnants, I do not remember, but I don't think that there was any obvious thins or other damage. I'll look more closely for scrapes or other issues in that and other areas, though. I also will look at the thickness of the paper, but I am not an expert in that area at all.

I was just glad the area of interest is well clear of any cancellations that would further confuse the issues.

Is it just me or is there something going on in this area? Perhaps something stuck to printing plate when printed?
Don