Early New South Wales Varieties

I have these three stamps that I think will be of interest to the aussies here. The questions are about the first and third stamps. The second is just for eye candy.

I am pretty sure I have identified them correctly.

The first is SG165 1860-72 with what looks like an inverted or deformed S in South. Damage right side. Is this known ?.

The second is SG169 1860-72 with a nice paper fold. Shame about the cut sides. This also has marks in the white frames, but nothing like the stamp below.

The third is SG329 1903-08. If you look in the white frames left, right and most of the central portion, there are a lot of marks. This has double lined AGE with line below watermark. Is this a misplaced entry, or normal for this printing ?.

What do you think ?.

Hi Dynamode,

The first one will be down to plate wear or underinking.

The third one is a marginal stamp. The 'AGE' is from the word 'POSTAGE' in the marginal watermark inscription. The green in the margins will be from overinking I'd say.

Hope this helps

Ok thanks, sounds reasonable.

I have only just noticed, That all the E look slightly different as well, so what you say makes sense.

SG329

Are you sure? or am I missing something?

No I am not sure. A sort of educated guess. But obviously not educated enough if you are asking. I was hoping you would see this.

Its perf 12 x 11 but I dont know which watermark it is as I can only see the double lined AGE with the line below..

I lost interest in Australian stamps, of which I have many varieties. I got frightened to ask in case I got me head bit off, or accused of being mental, on drugs ect ect.

But I do not think that will happen here.

Please feel at ease. It is a no bullying workplace here.

Your 3rd stamp is a toughie. But we shall try to solve it.

From my limited knowledge, this is a "Diadem" type.
5d Queen Victoria (see "Postage" above Crown)
Stanley Gibbons Type 15

If (and I stress if) your Perforation guage is correct,

Then it is Stanley Gibbons SG# 233(d) blue green (1885) £7 55p in 1993

PS: I think your fold print is a "cracker" I am sure would arouse serious interest from NSW specialists.

Thanks for posting good scans.

Thanks for the reassurance.

Here is a scan of the reverse maybe it will help.

If you need an exact measurement for the perfs, I will dig out the instanta.

I normally do the watermark and perfs when I scan and write them as the stamp description.

This is an old scan, so no problem rechecking.

I will do the perfs tomorrow.

Hi Rod,

I know nothing about these issues though I do like the designs and colours.

Is SG 329 not a reasonable candidate for the 5d especially given SG's comment after the set about stamps without watermarks coming from the edge of the sheet?

In my experience SG tends to ignore marginal watermark inscriptions.

Sorry if I'm missing something here.

Nigel,
something is very wrong here.

I have SG# 329 as a completely different stamp, a Style #63 9d

Can you figure it out?

Nigel,
found it....... In my catalogue, it is SG#243 (1903-1908)

So my error I presume, (out of date catalogue)..or British eccentricity.

That's why I went over to Scott Catalogue, much more reliable.

I am using a 2011 SG part one, which goes to 1970.

And when I want to totaly confuse myself, I look at my 2006 Scott classic.

I do like the Scott catalogue. Its a great all in one with most of the different printings covered. And a huge amount of pictures.

The Scott only goes to 1940. But for an all world collector of classics, its probably the best English language catalogue around.

I got past looking at values of stamps in catalogues long ago. In the real world, SG catalogue values mean nothing for most stamps. They are just numbers plucked out the air.

Hi Rod,

I vaguely remember SG carrying out a major rewrite of at least some of their Australian States listings and many stamps were added.

My 1990 Part 1 shows the same numbers as your scan so the rewrite was after then but I'd guess it was during the 1990s.

SG don't do this often very often but it does happen occasionally. There was for example a major rewrite of SG's Russia listings in the mid-1970s.

When SG adds new stamps or a new set to its old listing it usually gives the stamps a suffix such as 1234a, 1234b, etc.

I guess when they receive convincing advice from specialist societies that the structure of a listing needs significant improvement then they will renumber the stamps.

Definately perf 12 x 11.

Thanks Dynamode,
you were correct all along.

Thanks Nigel.
(My Catalogue is SG Commonwealth specialised 1993)

Thanks Rod for the confirmation.

So in the third stamp, these marks are normal for this printing ?,