My Australian Oddities

My Reading the Section 2 of the preamble,
CTO did exist for the 10/- punctured OS
However, the CDS differs in that GPO lives at the top of the ring,
and Melbourne at the bottom, ergo, GPO followed by M, would not exist as a CTO
If that be correct, yours would be a genuine Pmk.

I share you conclusion, not much info available addressing your stamp,...a mystery.
"Langtounlad" or Fair Dinkum Stamps, may chip in.

Partime,
The 3 Melbourne CTO cancellations from Roo 1988 Specialist Cat' - loose leaf.

The CTO datestamp was inscribed Melbourne at the top, blank at base. Varies dates used as new supplies were required etc. I hope it helps.

Partime
According to the PPA flaw finder what you have is Stamp R60,

R60 (10/6) b Spencer's Gulf clipped short
R60 (10/6) c Triangular coloured flaw projecting inwards from left frame 10mm down
R60 (10/6) d Break in inner left frame and shading lines alongside short at 7½mm down
R60 (10/6) e Break in 5th shading line below A of AUST with colour flaw immediately below.

No need to worry Rod222. I can log on when time permits.

Harry64 (Dave)

So, David,
R60
10/- was a plate "120 on"

eg Top and bottom plate 60 each, 10 rows of 6 stamps
R60 should the be top plate, bottom right hand side stamp?

Rod
120 on. 60 on left and 60 on right. Hence L1-L60 or R1-R60
Panes normally separated by central gutter with Printer at base, so block of 4 with printers mark (eg.JOHN ASH. T.S.Harrison) will be L54 over L60 and R49 over R55 with a gutter in between.

Harry64

Wow. This site was down for a few days and I just missed the various replies. Thanks for filling me in with so much good information. I may have some Specimen stamps to post next week.

Thanks again to Finches, Rod and Dave (Harry) for their responses. I just wanted to post this other 10 shilling stamp that came with the same purchase. This one is a CTO as you can clearly see part of Melbourne in the correct orientation. I believe this is ACSC 48wa. (Single watermark) There are some interesting features which may help in plating, but, alas, nothing in my ACSC book.

Of course, if I was thinking straight, I would have already posted these through scans to help with identification. Here is the first one that has been identified by Dave as R60. You can see the marginal lines, confirming the 60 position.


Here is the newest one, confirming that it is a marginal copy also.

I make it Left 20 (4/2 = 4th Row, 2nd stamp in)
Break in bottom shading line, bottom Right hand Corner.
Ooops! cannot be that with a marginal line

Sorry Partime.
Unable to help with identification.
Had a look at all left and right marginal copies and associated flaws but nothing came up matching with your copy.
Closest I could come up with is,

R31 (6/1) a Break at right in 4th shading line in Bight
(But alas No pic)

Harry64

Thanks as always for your help.

Harry64 said



To clarify the monogram/imprint information you provided.

There was one printing in 1st watermark with CA and JBC monograms under L57 and R58 respectively.

In 3rd watermark there were 2 printings by Cooke - so the monograms in these printings would be the same as above. The remaining 7 printings were done by Harrison with his 2 line imprint under central gutter as you stated. Neither Mullett nor Ash printed the 10/- in 3rd watermark.

You also imply that some Kangaroo and Map plates had no central gutter. I have not come across such information in years of studying Roos so would appreciate if you could provide me with the authority for this.

Regards
Frank

Frank,
I did use the (eg.) to show as an example of an imprint, NOT an imprint specific to the 10/- as such, but as we were talking about a 10/- stamp I probably should have been more specific.

I don't think that I implied anything of the sort that some panes were printed without the central gutter, people sometimes use normally when they are implying that something is normal. (Go figure)

I was actually making a point more about the plate positions of the stamps associated with the gutter and imprint, rather than the imprint itself.

Harry64

I've purchased some Specimens that are coming over the next few weeks. Some could be interesting, so I'll post them when they arrive. This one was lurking in my collection, and I wanted to look at it a little more closely while trying to understand the "Double Perforation", which I see attributed to several different Australian stamps ... some of which give a nice value enhancement. The bottom border looked interesting, but I don't think it qualifies. However, while looking down there, I saw some interesting marks in the "O" of "TWO". Can this be used to plate this item?

This is Scott 102, ACSC 57x, the small multiple watermark version. Overprinted SPECIMEN, type D.




Edit. I also posted a "Pack Horse" Australian cover in this other thread. Interesting, but not an oddity. Have a look.
https://goscf.com/t/72875

This one just arrived, and I was hoping that the small picture was accurate. It was, so I'm very happy.

This is Scott 58, which is also known as ACSC 56. If it was a normal stamp, it would be worth quite a bit. However, as some of us know, a Specimen stamp is less valuable.


A through scan shows that it is a marginal copy, from the sixth column, if I read ACSC correctly.


What is interesting is that (per ACSC), this is a Type C Specimen Overprint with special sub-type 6a, known as a "Battered N".


Here is the section from ACSC describing this type:


What is even more (potentially) exciting is the wording in that last portion that says, "exact position not yet determined". Since my copy is a heavy marginal version, I see some of the lettering on the far right side. Retroreveal was able to help out a little bit:


So, the challenge to our Aussie friends is to figure out the exact position so that we can tell Geoffrey Kellow for his next revision of ACSC.

Note that there is also an interesting horizontal line through the Kangaroo. I can't identify this as one of the Vignette Plate Varieties. Maybe I'm reading a bit too much into this last one.


Thanks in advance for your input, and any wild-guess on value would be much appreciated. (It is a previously mounted version.)