Are These British Stamps Worth Catalog Value?

First stamp is Britain number 42 mint. Its quite valuable but as you can see missing perfs and close to design.

The second stamp, Scott 53 as far as I can tell since it has a very clear 25 watermark. Obviously not very fine and one of those older stamps that Scott notes can have perfs may touch the design and sell for 10 to 20 percent less. Would you agree that fits this stamp?

I'll leave others to offer value.
I don't think we can call it "mint" (as from the press)
It is damaged, and it seems like the marks of a cancellation ?
"Mint" it would require full, and undisturbed gum.

I agree the 1 shilling would have to be considered used. It is unfortunately very faulty and is only worth a small percentage of catalog value. It is still a useful spacefiller for the collection.

The ten pence has the design touching the perfs at the bottom, but is well cut in at the right. The price reduction is far more in that case and that is assuming there are no faults. It does not have a good look about it; it may be gum soaked or regummed.

If I was purchasing these stamps, I'd consider paying about 2-3% of Scott for #42 as it is just a space filler, as noted by hy-brasil, and a poor space filler at that.

I'm assuming #53 is used; if so, it also looks soiled. And the design is cut on two sides. Again, maybe 2-3% of catalog.

With Sc#42, can any members expand on the "Hair Lines" variety please?
Maybe a scan / catalogue image ?
Never seen those before.
Any ideas how they come about?

I estimated the Sc#53 has a "cleaned postmark"

Hairlines for Scott 39 are shown in this previous thread. It is a whitish diagonal line in one or more corners. The same type of hairline is shown in several issues, including 42.

https://goscf.com/t/67270

Hi Rod,

An illustration of a hairline, taken from SG:



Might the 10d stamp be fiscally cancelled?

Gibbons adds a premium for well centered/lightly used for QV stamps and collectors will pay a premium for well centered stamps.

One never stops learning (and forgetting) in this hobby.
Thanks Steve and Bobby



I think you may be right, I seem to be able to see a part script 3/11 date.

Here is a better picture of # 53.

I inspected both stamps and they both have no gum so they probably are used. 53 has a hinge remnant.