2½d KGVI 1942-50 & 5½d Emu 1942-51

I've just received my copy of ACSC Sections 6 & 7 go my general pain-in-the-butt-edness is likely to be increasing!! Makes a great change from 20 to 30 year old catalogues.

Re ACSC 230 - 2½d KGVI Scarlet - am I correct in stating that the catalogue has transposed the entries and pictures for 230e and 230f?

My first foray into my pages was to the 5½d Emu of 1940. Here is a picture of two specimen. The second is 232f Re-entry on T of POSTAGE. I think the first is also but it may just be a similarly shaped morsel of the cancellation. Both also set to have a weakness across the junction of the bar and upright of the T.

Your comments would be appreciated.





Frank.

Hi Frank

Good question, My opinion is that it seems that they are two different stamps (concerning varieties) and not transposed (of course other members may differ in their valuation whether both have the same variety).

I cannot see any re-entry, then that may be because of a lack of rest (being quite busy lately), Just to correct an oversight, the stamp was issued in 1942 not 1940.

Rob

Here is the ACSC image for the so-called re-entry to T of POSTAGE 232f. It is identical to the right hand copy of my two emus, in that it has the larger flaw within the cross bar of the T and the weakness across the junction with the upright portion. I would put a 75% probability on the other copy also being 232f, but the cancellation throws a bit of doubt into the picture.



I would not have recognized this as a re-entry but I bow to superior knowledge