Sg48 ½d Green Large Mult Wmk

Is this a listed variety (Can't find in my books) or just a case of underinking?

Frank,
it is always best practice to offer all your information, to the best of your knowledge on the item in question, to enable us to ID correctly.

Perforation guage and Watermark should always be offered.

I cannot see any reference to your example.

There exists on Electro 9, (66(9)i ....Break in top frame, left of crown.

I would suggest you keep your example, as it may appear in future editions of ACSC.....Nice Find !


Also, electro 2 (63(2) L Break in top frame over Right wattles.

Both examples circa $25 2007

Hey, Rod, I don't think I can narrow it down any further than SG 48, 1/2d green, large mult wmk. Even without the SG number, it's pretty specific as 14.25 by 14 is the only perf and only electros 4 to 7 we're used. Perhaps, however, I could have put this in the text as well as, or instead of the title.

Frank.

Nice stamp but the title with strange symbol.

I have never use or purchased a Stanley Gibbons or Scott's. Nor never will.

Australia Commonwealth Specialist Catalogue And Reniks And UK fly speck books and the better dealer sites and google are for me.

So SG & SC numbers mean nothing to me.

Would be best to give good title descriptions to avoid strange catalogue number referances.

Thanks Frank.
Could not find anything further.
I only have 7 copies of the Sc#60

(But I do have the ACSC 65(5)m "thin half" $125)

I looked at Dixon and Rowntree also (still cannot figure out their "Flaw Key" method)

Note: You also have a notch (n) top right hand frame.

Look for : Watermark Inverted $40,000

Nice variety Rod, very popular.





Have one in a pair with the left middle margin strip in place somewhere.

Found it at the bottom of a large messy box many years ago. It has a fold along 1 perf line & it has had a very messy hinge removal that has gum damage only. Not a good look mint though.

Rod:

The watermark is not inverted <boo hoo>

KGV Collector:

Re Catalogues, this is a case of to each his own. I do have ACSC's from 1980s (bought new) and 1990s (ex ebay) which serve me quite well but presently can't afford a new set. Also, I think ACSC changes their number system too often for my taste.

Re the symbol in the title, here is what I see:



I suspect you are not seeing the '1/2' character if your device is set up for a restricted character set.

Frank.

Yes I totally agree with you. And the cost of some of these books and the constant updating adds financial pressure as well.




My example of what I say about my catalogue preference is really summed up in the way I put together "Australia KGV Stamps explained." There is no reference in my material to any catalogue and it is presented differently to any other catalogue that I know about.

It shows you can describe all stamps with images and stamp terms and not be locked into one area of catalogue.

I guess, as in all social situations, we need to be aware of the preferences of others. For my part, I splurged all of $15 on Scott's eCatalogue so that I can, at least, provide a cross-reference to SG as required.

I am currently designing my own album pages and info as needed, including a catalogue reference number, will be on a facing page rather than on the page on which the stamps are mounted. Much easier to update as it will minimize the need to remount stamps just because of a reference number change.

I cannot understand why anyone would criticise the heading in this post. The original poster was asking for information specific to a particular type of stamp and his question was about a listing which implies presence in a specialist catalogue of some kind - in this case the information would be sourced from ACSC or Dix and Rowntree.

The SG number is good for general ID purposes and you use what you have.

On reading first the heading and then the question I went straight to the relevant pages in ACSC KGV. Did not need to know the perfs as Large Multiple in the green value had only one perf. All in the header so no need for elaborate descriptions.

But if you want to be ultra perfectionist he should have been asked why he did not have KGV in the header.

Regards
Frank

Believe the title was changed after prompting from Rod.

The heading, as I see it, is exactly as I originally submitted it. Doesn't the moderator usually add a "reply" if changing it?

If that is the case Frank,
I owe you an apology.

All I can think is that I read your question, and missed the heading.

Sorry.

No problem, Rod.

It looks like I too have the wrong end of it all.

So a sorry from me as well itma.

To err is to be human, to forgive, devine.....