New South Wales Numeral Cancels

1603 Emerald Hill (rated R), 120 Moree, 1256 Hillgrove, 1152 Harris Street (best guess - rated RR), 97 Walcha, 155 Taralga.

1152 based on the gap between the ones and the shape of the five.

Thanks again Bobby.

Bobby,

'After you' mentioned 1152, I copied the image back to Pictures & did some 'Photo Editing' using 'Adjustments' & you're SPOT ON.

Well done !.

Thanks for the kind words finches - I appreciate it!

Hi Al,

281 Wilcannia, 9 Bathurst, 158 Cullen Bullen (rated R), 546 Somerton (rated RR), 182 Newtown, 66 Singleton.

Could you put the 158 aside please Al? When we're done I'd like to make an offer if you're interested.

No problems Bobby .

Thanks Al!

161 Aberdeen, 345 Forbes, 120 Moree, 208 Waverley, 1134 The Exchange, 73 Warialda.

The 1134 can't be a 13 as the 1 and 3 are too close together.

Starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel now , Thanks Bobby .

Bobby De La Rue,
I was just looking at 10(4) Carcoar in the book. The rays on mine didn't match the postions of the example shown.
Do you think the one shown may be a three digit numeral such as 104/5?
Look particularly at the spread of rays across underneath the numeral - seems plenty of room for a third numeral.

Well spotted fairdinkumstamps. I think you're 100% correct!

Early and late state of the Carcoar 10 (4) 3R16 below.



I think Hugh's stamp is an upside down 501.



He'd be upset, as he focused on rays cancels on large diadems.

Yes, 501 fits the rays nicely - thanks Bobby De La Rue.

This is a page he sent me from his beautiful collection of NSW numerals

Two others that I'm musing over.

I think that Cobar 684 (2) and (3) are the same device, the latter just more worn.

Below is a Bathurst 9 (1) taken from Manwood, lot 4057.



I've got a feeling the (1) and (2) illustrations in the book are the same device, but I wouldn't like to say for sure. The tail on the Manwood stamp looks different, to my eyes at least, from Hugh's (1) illustration.

I also wonder why the (2) is rated RRR but the (1) is rated R. In theory shouldn't it be the other way around?

Gee that's a lovely display!

Thanks for sharing

I would say they are different - especially the shape of the 4. 684(2) has a small upright on the left edge of the 4 which can't be accounted for (IMHO) in the triangular centre of the 4 in 684(3).