My Australian Oddities

It's been a few weeks. This isn't so odd, but looks interesting when put side-by-side. Scott 189 (ACSC 223), is the 3 1/2d on 3d. There is mention of the 2 1/2d on 2d being worth a bit more if the surcharge is misplaced by 3mm or more, but no note on this one. On the far right, the 3 1/2 surcharge is actually just out of the black box.

2d Grey is Die 2A 3R53

Thanks Harry. It's not listed in my latest ACSC (2017), so I'll assume that it is somewhat normal.

Hi Partime

The SG 200(var)/ACSC 222cc 1941 2½d on 2d surcharge is very scarce, and must be at least 3mm to left for it to be considered a misplaced surcharge variety.

This stamp in used condition is currently being sold on the market for $400 mint unhinged; $250 mint lightly hinged and $150 used.

The 3½d stamps, the first being centred to the base and the third being flush with the top are not listed and would be minor varieties, or not yet listed in the ACSC as of yet.

Rob

Thanks Rob. Always glad to hear your comments.

Hi Partime

Always around to lend a hand.

Rob

Here's another ... this time a Postage Due. Once I received my ACSC reference material, I was able to figure out this was a CTO. Scott J11 (ACSC D21w) is known as the inverted watermark with a 4-ring CTO. I only count three here, but other pictures in the ACSC book all look like 3-ring to me.

Looks a bit messy to be CTO.

Exactly why I put it here in the Oddities section. Several pages from the ACSC Postage Dues booklet follow. The first clearly shows the type of N.S.W CTO, of which I believe it is Type 2. However, the 4 ring CTO obliterator from WA doesn't show the N.S.W in the picture from page 10/49. If not D21w, what do I have?

I've been looking through some examples for sale, and have now seen quite a few. It may just be that the NSW CTO cancel was later used to just indicate a normal cancel in later years. A little odd, but, apparently, normal for the postage dues.

Here's a recent purchase to fill a hole in my collection. Scott 54 (ACSC 44) is the 5 shilling Roo. At first glance, it looks like my Roo has a nasty mark just under the tail section. However, this is just part of a smudge from the cancellation. I'm glad, though, because if these Roos left messes of this size all over the outback, it could be very difficult walking around.


Followup question. Is the tail broken at the bottom? If so, it looks a lot like 44(V)e, but there should be a smaller section of the tip showing.

Hi Partime.

I'll be sitting in the background absorbing what is being said about the cancellation of the postage due, I have very little knowledge about them and any info I can research on will be a lesson for me.

Rob

Hi Partime.

That roo definitely has a short tail I do not yet have the ACSC on roos but will be soon. I'll have to look it up on Tuesday.

When I used to do some work in outback Queensland in the late 1970s, you would be surprised the size of the calling cards left by the bigger fellas.

Rob

Here is Scott 216 (ACSC 274), the 1948 Pan-Pacific Scout Jamboree. A very common, inexpensive stamp. I've picked up two different versions of the "By Authority Imprint Block" with some differences on the continuous perforations. Unfortunately, they do not contain variety D, noted as "Flaw on Scout's left forearm".



The first block seems to have some type of scratch going through the 2 1/2d value, into the adjoining stamp. It looks like some other type of blue mark also. The back of the stamp is clean, and both versions have hinge marks. Do you think the mark was due to mishandling by an owner, or is this some type of burnishing mark? Comments appreciated.

Last one for tonight. Scott 125 (ACSC 40). Is this a guide dot in the LL corner?