My Australian Oddities

Jimjam ... an interesting mark, but is it an S? I'll have to look at some of mine, but not seen that one.

22crows, good detective work. Mine is from the same company, and has some back stamps.

FYI
Canada to Selfridges, London.

This topic has been dormant for a while, so my recent purchases are worth posting.

Here is Scott 18 (ACSC 60), which is known with a variety "Recut inner frame below kookaburra's tail". This is NOT that variety, but I can find no others listed in my 2014 ACSC. This pair has a large thin at top (unfortunately), and both show a vertical line at top right. The right stamp, though, has a quite extensive line down half of the right side. An engraver's slip? Any thoughts?

One of my favourite Aussie Stamps.



I'd suggest not, a slip would be that doubtful, being that long.
But what do I know?
My reference material is wanting in this regard, I only have ACSC Catalogue number #3986.

What about ACSC #3 e ? "Hairline"
I have no experience with that, no description, Catalogues at $300.
Any idea?

I'm on it, will know by tomorrow.

Rob

Partime

As these Kookaburras were engraved and recess printed it possible that your flaw is a ductor blade error. There is another small one on the right hand stamp just at the end of the beak.

Regards
Frank

I have been informed that it is most likely a plate scratch which was very common for that issue. As a pair, though, it is interesting to see that both the left and right stamps have a small vertical line at the top right. Here is the left stamp, which has a semblance of a plate scratch, but no line at the beak:



The right stamp, though, as you state has a much more noticeable line at the beak, and the longer, more clear plate scratch at the right.




Anyway, nice items to have, and I haven't seen this on other copies yet. Luckily, I didn't have this one, so now I have two ...

. . . And a small scratch vertically across the kookaburra's beak.

Here's a recent purchase that is actually quite plain. Scott OB8, ACSC 17bc, an Official stamp with small OS perfin. What is nice is that the date on this stamp is 16 January 1913 (to my eyes). According to ACSC, the stamp was issued from stock on 11 January 1913, so this would make this one of the earliest known usages -- and an Official stamp as an added plus.

Pmk: Townsville Queensland.

I may have asked a similar question earlier, but can't find it now. Anyway, this is a different stamp, so different question, right?

Scott 66, watermark small crown and A multiple. It has a very clean cancel, and appears to be full gum on the back. This would classify as a CTO, which makes it ACSC 68w, but my understanding is that all CTO's were Melbourne. This isn't. Any thoughts?

Suggestion / Guess.
Postmark is TRAFALGAR VIC
Not a CTO
Possibly a collector has "steamed" the stamp off cover, or similar?

Quite possible. I found another in the same purchase which was quite similar with the wrong postmark, but full gum and a very nice placement of the postmark. Maybe favor cancelled?

Steve, I never discount members suggestions,
however 1930, country town, Favour cancel? that's a really long shot.

I have bought tins of KG5 sidefaces, from old collections, and it was not uncommon for lay collectors to steam off stamps, you often see them with gum, and shards of envelope still clinging on.

However.....they do exist

Here's an interesting one. Scott 24 which appears to have a white flaw on the emu's body.



It is very close to the image identified in ACSC as 88(16)j, located at position 16R30, but not quite the same. The spot is in a slightly different area. Here is the scan from ACSC.


I'm going to file it as an oddity.