George V. Any Interest

Hi new to this. Things I have seen so far suggest these may raise some interest or am I wide of the mark?

I think there is quite a bit of interest in George V, is there more? I don't know anything about them other than I like them.

Pnemegend, welcome to the forum. The first pair of stamps has a great cancel on it, probably from a small town. The second one has a piece missing on top and is therefor not very interesting. The third one was used as a revenue stamp, but due to the picture somewhat blurry I can not be sure of what it is.


Peter

Can you read the year of the HORSHAM postmark?

Years of Horsham (Time at top) lie between 1900 and 1908
If your date lies outside these parameters, you can add to a database.

Keep this piece, do not soak off the paper.

Catherine Howard (c.1520–1542), one of King Henry VIII's wives, lived in Horsham

.

Found a couple more to go with them!

Thanks for the replies so far folks. The mark on the Horsham one only appears to have the time and day/month as 12.15a.m ja 11. I can see this through the back of the paper also. The year appears to be missing although may possibly just be there as 11.

Bad luck then, we usually scan that area in high def (600dpi) or look through a magnifying glass to try and determine date.

The other stamps have "manuscript" cancels, suggesting fiscal use. (the 1½ penny is a wavy "machine cancel")

The Green are King Edward Vll, others King George V.

With your 2d KGV orange, may look similar, but exist in 2 types
l. With 3 lines above the King's head,
ll. with 4 lines above the King's head.

You'll need a Loupe or magnifying glass.

Hi

Have a King George V stamp that is difficult to catalog. Prior owner had written 190 on reverse but Scott Catalog lists another denomination for that catalog number. The stamp perf is 14 1/2 by 15. Triple checked the perf as 14 1/2 by 15 isn't listed as an option in Scott for this stamp. Any help appreciated.

As far as I know, 15 x 14 was the only perf used for these stamps. Maybe quadruple check!

First, my copy of Scott says it's perf 14-1/2 x 14. SG says 15 x 14. Who is right? The measurement given is plus or minus 1/4 in either case and should be interpreted as nominal, or best match. My used copy measures 14.7 x 14.3; other results may vary slightly (certainly for a mint one), but obviously each catalog rounds the gauge to the nearest 1/2 in different ways.

gettinold.

For your info a number written on the back of a stamp does not necessarily mean that it is the same as the catalogue you are using. Not having other catalogues than Scott does not allow me to verify from which catalogue this number comes from.

Even if it was, maybe the person who wrote that number did not check for perfs, watermarks, different printings, etc.

I will naturally look if there is a number written on the back but usually I try to identify the stamp first without even looking at the number.

Dan

Agree with Geoff, 15 x 14
Scott can be liberal with their perforation size,
I recall a similar problem with the Australian KG5 sidefaces.

Just check by placing the stamps next to each other of the same set.(half a perf)

Thank you all. Quadruple check of perfs yielded same result.





Scott Catalog number 215 close at perf 14 1/2 x 14.

Opinion,
if 2 catalogues, each choose to go one half perf up, one half perf down,
then there will be a discrepancy.
I think that's what has happened here.

I'll dig out my GB album, and measure the design, do the math, and see what I get, and run the guage over a few.

TIP.
when guaging, (I use the teeth as well)
Line up the first tooth, on the left, the see how the teeth graduate.

In your scan the left tooth favours the left, and the far right to the right
not accurate. (It may be a problem when placing in your scanner)

Using math,
the stamp design is 18mm x 21.5mm
I have 13 teeth top, 15 teeth down

makes my stamp perf 14.45 x 13.96.

Running it over the "sliding scale" of the perf guage=

I get 14.75 x 14.25 = Perf 15 x 14 in my book.

If you use this part of the perf guage, (and employ the teeth, not the holes) you can measure towards one quarter of a guage.