NSW Believe This Is A Laureate Essay - Are There Any Other Recorded

First of all I must state my reasons to believe this is an essay. During a typical essay process the frame would be designed separately and after the vignette. In this stamps case we have a completed vignette and an essay of the frame. The frame is usually designed in two steps, the first with the value tablet left blank and the second and final stage is the value tablet added. This is to allow the authority to change the value without having to request a complete new frame design. It also allows easier re-use if the value is changed at a later date, due to rate increases.
Here you can see the drawing lines above and below the words NEW and WALES, and the poor centering of the word SOUTH, Plus they are stencilled in and look a lot different than the perfectly formed letters on the final proof.

This stamp was sold by a reputable UK dealer as SG45 for £260, but it bears no relation,

It its likely this was printed on a new copper plate, not a production plate as the impression is crisper than the issued stamp. The color is also a lot stronger, being almost perfect.

Secondly is this unique? probably, as this would have been one of several stages in the essay process and there would have been little need to make multiple copies. Lastly, after doing a bit of research, globally, auction catalogs etc I have not come across any essays of the Laureate. of any stage in the process.

If any one has literature on the subject or can find any other examples please let me know.


I stuck it on ebay with the hope of getting a wider audience. I will be enquiring if there is a postal museum in Sydney, All this is conjecture, however I would not be posting this if I did not believe there was a smoking gun here.

Hi theswedish

Cannot say whether it's a colour trial, plate proof or die proof (it may be a plate proof or colour trial by what I see); I do know of two people who are experts in Australian stamps, though one is on holidays until October 1.

It actually does look like SG45 as it refers to the design of image 8. The condition is superb with full four corners and very clear and deep detailing.

Does it have any gum as they usually have no gum, partly gummed, partly gummed and hinged or no gum without any hinging.

I'll speak to the other stamp expert on Monday and show him the image and will get in touch with you soon after.

Rob

Thank you for your post and for obtaining the assistance of your experts. Upon comparison of the letters in the frame I would say that there is a definate difference between this stamp and SG45. A difference that led me to the conclusion that this was an essay, amongst other factors related to in my first post. Perhaps others can agree on this?

Here is a comparison

This isn't an essay. It's a very early printing. It's position 6 (ie: the 6th stamp of the first row)

These stamps were engraved one at a time on the plate. Seeing the engravers guidelines isn't unusual.

There are plate proofs (qv Manwood lot 465).

Hope this helps

Thank you. Yes it does help, and I enjoy the learning experience. I appreciate your help.

It's certainly a beautiful stamp!

Hi theswedish

I was sent an email from Richard Juzwin after he saw the image, he is an internationally renowned stamp expert, he said that it looks proof-like rather than an essay, and would like to see it physically so he can compare the paper type /thickness as it is important so he can compare it to other genuine examples that he has.

Richard also wants to know how much are you offering to sell it?

If you do want to sent it I will give you his business address.

Rob

I'll be most interested in the outcome of this.

There is no mention of plate proofs in the traditional sense in either Lowe, Hutson or Basset-Hull.

The latter mentions the letter to the Colonial Secretary of 18 December 1851 which in part states "The accompanying prints are struck from the Plate." which will be the plate proof I mentioned earlier, which is in a different shade to the stamp shown by theswedish.

Whilst the illustration is small, lot 4372 from the Manwood sale is also a nice early impression example. The description says unused, fine impression. The guidelines for NEW and WALES are clearly visable.





Let's also keep in mind there is a large variance in paper thickness of this issue.

With 2 days, 17 hours remaining, the stamp has 17 bids and is currently at $42.51.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NSW-Beauti...AOSwOWpdhHhR

Hi theswedish

It may be a plate proof or a reprint, there are also many fakes floating around that look convincing, though I am not implying that the stamp is a fake, I believe it may be a reprint made a decade or more later.

Richard also wanted to know if the stamp has gum or no gum and was it hinged as this is also important.

I have an 1895 plate proof reprint of an 1860 plate proof shown below, the original was from the second transfer of plate II of the twopence stamp); there is only a slight difference between the original and the reprint, a dot by the "U" in "QUEENSLAND" and a dot near the arabesque (patterned scrolling between "QUEENSLAND" and "TWO PENCE") makes the imperforate block of 4 a reprint, the original does not have the dots.

I also have proofs made in their original year and all show some sort of ageing (no rust or toning), for something so clean and perfect it may be a reprint. But to be sure of what it is, it should be given to an expert in colonial Australian stamps.

You can contact Richard *** Private information removed by Staff. Please do not post your address/email/phone number etc. ***
***We remove all email addresses, please see rule #20 https://www.stampcommunity.org/rules.asp#rulesid20 ***

Rob

After looking at the stamp on ebay the reverse has a heavy hinge mark, some thinning in the centre, no gum and has toning and a long vertical crease.

As the reverse of the stamp is very important, the condition of the back can heavily impact on the value of the stamp.

Like a used car, the body may look great but what is hidden under the hood is important; with a stamp, no matter how good the front looks, it is the hidden part (the back) that is important.

Rob

Thanks for the link littleriverphil

The stamp shown in the original post looks a lot brighter than the image on ebay. The blackish markings around 'POSTAGE' could be dirt or oxidisation of some sort. The crease could be a pre-printing paper fold. It looks like there are 3 hinge remains but if there is no gum then these could be soaked off.

Here's two position 6 stamps, from Hutson. In each image we are looking at the stamp on the right.





I am not aware of any Laureate reprints of this denomination and the stamp on ebay/our first post here is certainly not a forgery in my opinion.

Rob041256, could you please tell us why you think it could be a reprint made a decade or more later?

Hi Bobby De La Rue

Reprints of Victorian stamps were not uncommon though the quantity of some reprints are very scarce such as the block of 4 I have shown, this stamp was made on stiff paper and issued without any gum, I do not believe the black design was ever an unadopted part of the original issue, but to separate the reprint from the original plate proofs, this design is in pristine condition and so is the reverse.

The block of 4 stamps were printed from the original plate 35 years later, and most likely the 1d red laureate was printed much later than the original 1851 plate.

Were you aware of the existence of this 1895 reprint? Not all reprints are known.

You are correct, it is definitely not a forgery, but it looks very much like a reprint and if properly examined it will most likely be identified as a reprint; the crease on the back is not from a paper fold as it would also upset the front design, the crease is from negligence rather than a printer's error.

The rear of the stamp is a mess showing toning, a heavy hinge remnant, thinning, creases and the presence of rust, thus removing any possibility of it being of any real value; it isn't worth GBP£245 (AU$449.91; US$304.54).

The back of the stamp is very important. If the rear was as pristine as the front I would have offered up to $400 for the reprint and over $1000+ if it were an original 1851 proof. In my opinion if anyone was intending to pay $50 for it, they would not get their money back if they tried to sell it later.

Rob

Hi Rob,

No I wasn't aware of this 1895 reprint, Queensland not being even remotely a strong point for me, although I do have a nice array of used perforated small chalons to the shilling value. I did look at Lowe's book which mentions various reprints, some in 1895, but not the one you have shown, which is lovely by the way The 2d wasn't issued in black.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the 1d Laureate though. I believe it's a very early printing. This plate was made of steel and never re-engraved but will have shown some wear by the time watermarked paper was introduced in early 1854, let alone when the 1d diadem was introduced in April 1856.

Tomorrow morning I'll see if I can find an example of the 1d Laureate on watermarked paper that can compare with the level of detail as the subject of our thread

Hopefully the buyer might be watching our discussion and maybe enlighten us further!

I had a look through my auction catalogues and could only find one example of position 6 on watermarked paper.

This should come as no surprise as the watermarked laureates are much cheaper then unwatermarked examples.

This is lot 428 from the Carrington auction (Millennium Nov. 2012). The stamp on the far right is position 6:



It's not as sharp an impression as the stamp in the original post IMHO.

Hi Hi Bobby De La Rue

That is an impressive strip of 4 imperforate laureates, Pity it was 7 years ago, I would have bid for it.

Rob