Adelade 2016 Emergency Issue 30 Cent Stamps

There's more to it than just that, though he will use references as well. The SG and ACSC are more reliable in info than most others.

I have a $7,000 stamp and it isn't shown in the ACSC, although the ACSC does mention it to be unique. I spoke to Chris and he said that he cannot certify it until it is listed, which it will be in the next edition.

The references from the book only verifies the recognition of the stamp(s); other info written down is very important, and the status added makes the stamp quite valuable.

One of my stamps is listed on his certificate as very rare, and the value of the stamp runs into a lot of money. Without that certification the stamp would be treated as suspect because forgeries do exist.

He uses state-of-the-art technology worth many tens of thousands of dollars and travels overseas constantly certifying rarities at international auctions.

His certificates of authentication are the most preferred world-wide.

If you have the computerised equipment, the expert knowledge and always in demand for on-site expertising internationally, then yes, you can be an expert as well like him.

And he doesn't wait for a book to be published to make an opinion, he can confirm the authenticity and rarity without a catalogue, but the catalogue is needed to reference the item.

Rob041256

Your knowledge of Australia Post operations is very shallow. When I asked about your reference to the government printing office you waffled on about contractors really being government printers. Well this is the stuff of fairy stories.
I have to tell you that to the best of my knowledge Australian postage stamps were never printed in the government printing office - most printings were carried out in branches of the Treasury or its related statutory authorities.

Then I asked
.
Your reply was


In fact the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 sets out the authority of Australia Post. Australia Post is an autonomous (my description) corporation. It is not like many other government corporations in that it does not enjoy the privileges and immunities from State laws that most government institutions have because it is a commercial trading corporation.

The two important sections of the Act in relation to postal operations are



So your comments about higher authorities and federal guidelines are just nonsense. Section 18(j) gives the power to manufacture stamps to the Corporation which in functional terms is controlled by the Managing Director and his delegates.

Finally, I did ask for your definition of a label but you seem to be unwilling to give a clear answer. I shall put this thread out of its misery and quote directly from the interpretation section of the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989




So in Australia a label for postal articles is a postage stamp and Stanley Gibbons has no standing in the matter.

If you want to argue about the content of the Act I suggest you ask your local member of Parliament to take it up with the Attorney General.

Regards
Frank

Rob
A scan & description would be nice if you have one.

I have rare KGV imprints that are listed but not priced & wondered how you came up with $7000 for yours.

langtounlad

After all that typing and quoting you still have not shown me that it isn't a label, though you have shown I was correct.


I said they used a label and created an unofficial issue. In the quote it mentions they can use a label, which they had done. And as the General Post Office is not the contracted printer, the "stamps" is an unofficial printing.

Nothing in your post proves the label to be a stamp, in fact it proved the "stamp" indeed was a label, and a label will always be a label, and Stanley Gibbons is correct.

Unless of course, instead of posting irrelevant information based on the labels, why not actually prove that the particular issues in this discussion are actually stamps, and where there is demonstrable evidence stating these to be "stamps" and not labels.

Were these issues pulled out of storage as stamps or labels?


Instead of nit picking, if you read my post I actually said "as an authority they did so in an official capacity" so I agreed that Australia Post had the right to print emergency issues, what you haven't shown is that the emergency issues are official commercial "stamps" or unofficial "stamps".

As far as I'm concerned and I know others, not necessary on this forum, believe so too, that an official stamp is printed through the normal channels, to save you trying to make something out of it, I mean by means of a contracted printer.

If the issue was not printed by normal process I would call that "unofficial", and that means even though putting a value on a label so it can be presented as a stamp, it is not really a stamp, but a value printed label.

You can produce irrelevant information until you turn blue, but you would need to produce evidence from the printer, not from Australia Post for it to be deemed an official stamp, as they are the contracted authority as to what is a stamp and what is a label, seeing that they printed both the official stamps and the labels given to the Post Office to make these emergency issues.

Every reputable dealer I spoke to won't touch them with a barge pole, if they were actually official stamps and rare, dealers wouldn't hesitate buying them.

I needn't prove my case that I have already done; you have yet to prove they are actually an official stamp and not an unofficial CPS label used as a stamp. I originally agreed that Australia Post had the authorisation to print them, but so far these issues remain CPS labels.

I bought it for that amount when I was in Queensland, that's how I know.

I have a few stamps not mentioned in the ACSC ranging from very scarce to very rare.

I bought a very thin £2 Coat of Arms (0.085mm), much thinner than what ACSC states, that stamp cost me just shy of $2,000, there is also a superbly centred £1 coronation specimen costing nearly $2,000.

Soon I will be in possession of a $3,000 stamp (also not listed), I already have it's plain twin, this one has a major variety, both are certified very rare.

I am not short of finances and can easily afford premium scarce to very rare stamps, and the stamp you are referring to will be displayed when it is time, as I previously promised to display more stamps in the very near future, which I intend to do, so you will need to be patient.

Are these priced in any other catalog such as Scott or Michel?

Rob
So you wont buy these emergency stamps because nobody lists them but you buy other items that aren't listed & probably never will be LOL

Rob041256 said




You are saying that no matter what the federal laws say Australia Post does not have the authority to determine what is or what is not a postage stamp in Australia.

I find it difficult to argue against totally illogical arguments like that.

And where is the scan of your mysterious $7000 purchase.

Regards
Frank

Guys,
This is an obviously contentious topic and any healthy debate is welcome; but please remain civil and tolerant of other's opinions. We prefer to avoid any extra drama, at the end of the day our common ground is philately and camaraderie.
Thank you for this consideration,
Don

Hi Jenny

I have no idea if Scott or Michael will list what I have, as from earlier catalogues I've seen of both publications they seem to only list a simplified collection of Australian stamps.

All my pre-decimal stamps and decimals up to 1975 are in ACSC (Australian Commonwealth Specialists' Catalogue) order, some pre-decimals are not, like those listed as being very rare, certain colour shades and varieties.

Most of my valuable stamps are certified, others are in the process of being certified.

Those unlisted may be listed in the next issue of the ACSC, hopefully a new publication will be out soon, these catalogues are published every 5 years, the Queen Elizabeth II book hasn't been updated since 2002.

Rob

No, that is not the case, I will definitely purchase them if they were stamps, but they are merely counter printed labels used as stamps by Australia Post to fill a gap caused by a shortfall in official commercially printed 30 cents stamps.

Even though Australia Post has the authority to print such emergency issues, once they do, these issues are known as unofficially printed replacements by an authority other than the contracted printer.

Such emergency stamps issued by the contracted printer are official commercial replacement stamps.

The 1965 Aboriginal 2/6 emergency issue is indeed a stamp as it was issued by the contracted printer to replace the shortfall of the 2/6 Scarlet Robin

The 2000 international Koala emergency stamp was issued by using surplus 1999 stamps with the contracted printer incorporating a "International Post" vertical band.

The 2016 emergency issue was created from a roll of labels to be used as stamps; these are unofficial issues that are nothing more than counter printed labels that were used as replacement stamps.

The Frama is a vending machine label, but its primary use was to be used as a stamp, but it's still a label.


Two types of the 1965 emergency stamp was issued, the stamp on the left in Blackish Brown and on the right, Sepia. And the 2000 International emergency stamp with the transparent vertical International bar placed over a 1999 issue of the $1.00 koala.

Counter Printed Stamps more like it.CPS as they are known doesn't stand for counter printed label.

You are merely making up a story there. I have never stated that Australia Post never had the authority to call a label a stamp; they can officially call it whatever they want, as the purpose of the label was to replace a depleted issue of real 30 cent stamps and that purpose was successful.

Australia Post can print values on stamp size sticky notes and call them stamps and issue them as such, but when you have a good hard look at those "stamps" they really are nothing more than sticky notes that were counter stamped.

I may be wrong, but I suspect you may be in possession of some of these emergency issues and are desperately trying to convince yourself you have gold in your hand and not fool's gold, or you are attempting to prove a point you are constantly failing to do so.


It depends what is a totally illogical argument, referring to a label as a stamp or referring to a stamp as a label? So far you have proven that Australia Post can use labels to represent stamps, but you have not proven that these labels are officially stamps and not counter printed labels (which again place it into the category as a counter printed label).


What mysterious $7,000 purchase, it's not a mysterious purchase to me, I know what I bought; I purchased the stamp in 2009 with other stamps when I was in Queensland while in the process of selling part of my business to a friend.

It was a relatively small part of my purchasing range so I bought it. I promised weeks earlier that I have more to show in 2018, stamps such as this I have expertised, and I did mention weeks earlier that I have a few rarities being documented, and I have in the past shown documented rarities, so you will have to be patient.

Of course not, it stands for Counter Printed Stamps, but that does not automatically make a label an official stamp, it merely gives the label the purpose of being used as a stamp.

So it is correct for me to use the term counter printed labels.

You still haven't proven that the 2016 emergency issues are official stamps and not merely unofficial emergency issues from self adhesive labels, which is nothing more than counter printed labels with an issuance purpose as a temporary representation of a stamp (which means it is still a label).

Not up to me to prove anything Australia Post owns the machine & calls them Counter Printed Stamps as do stamp dealers .They had a value & were used to post letters etc.

The way I see it its up to you to prove Australia Post wrong or become CEO & change the wording LOL