Western Australia Watermarks

My admittedly older copy of Gibbons says that between 1864 and 1882 both the Crown CC and Crown CA watermarks are normally sideways and, viewed from the back, show crown to the left of the two letters beneath, with variants showing crown to the right.

I'm new to this collecting area and am wondering what these watermarks look like. How far to the left or right? I've searched the web and this site for an image: no luck. Can anyone help?

Hi Eric,
Just take your normal Watermark impression (as seen from the back)
Then rotate it 90 degrees to the left or right.
That's what is meant by the advice. The Watermark remains identical at all times, it is just the paper was put through the print stage in differing orientations.

In this image, imagine the cross on top of the crown, on your stamps,
pointing to the left or the right.
Hope this makes sense to you.

Thanks, Rod. Perfect sense, though only after my wife helped me grasp your explanation. (She's a bit sharper in these things.) I had imagined an upright crown with the letters offset somehow, i.e., a quite different watermark altogether.

Now, I assume that one starts with the design right-side up. The sideways watermark will then show the crown either to the left or to the right of the letters. Holding the stamp upside down would give an incorrect result. Have I got it?

Eric (PS Hope you're doing well.)

Yes well thanks Eric,
best wishes to you and your partner.

Perhaps a "Mud Map" shall suffice........


....and maybe to confuse things
Your Stanley Gibbons should offer a generalisations for all formats of orientation.
trust this helps
"Upside down" can occur, if the paper is inserted 180 degrees, see "Inverted"

Although for US watermarks, this tool will give you a better idea of the possible ordinations
http://stampsmarter.com/learning/Ma...ermarks.html (click on lower right button named 'Popup Location Tool')
Don

Nice link there, Don.

Eric,
a little story.
This is the stamp paper just made, still damp, and has gone though a pressing under the "dandy roll" , a cylinder, that presses the watermark into the damp paper.

When dry the blank paper looks like this.
(imagine then, when the stamp is printed on the paper, you will get a watermark in each individual stamp printed, in correct orientation.


Now, Imagine Martha the printer, happens to feed the paper in the printer
turned at 90 degrees, you can see how the watermark is then "pointing left"

Don, that pop-up location tool is fabulous. If only we had the same for every country.

And Rod, I find this note in Gibbons: "The stamp printers in the various Australian colonies paid little attention to the position of the watermark in the sheets they produced, so that some entire printings had the watermark inverted, some 50% upright and 50% inverted, while on others the inverted watermarks were restricted to odd sheets. In such circumstances it is impossible to provide adequate prices for such items, so only those inverted watermarks occurring on stamps printed in Great Britain are included in the following listings."

For the Western Australian stamps that concern me (1864-85), Gibbons does list variants such as "watermark to the right," "watermark inverted," "watermark reversed." And these stamps were "recess D.L.R. from P.B. plates," referring to De La Rue and Perkins, Bacon. Does that mean that these stamps were printed in Britain?

Eric

Hi Eric,
tough question, plates were sent out to Australia, others printed in England.
If you can offer me the Scott or Stanley Gibbons number of your stamp in question, I can give you Chapter and Verse.

Update: Yes, printed in England, I'll post some further information later.

Eric,
If you want any info on a particular stamp, just holler.

DLR Printings from Perkins Bacon Plates
Watermarks
Western Australia
The Stamps and Postal History
The West Australian Study Group 1979
ISBN 959647600
pp 72

Mogens Juhl
1992
ISBN 0959375244

Rod, you truly are a Bedrock of the Community, which has added so much to my understanding and enjoyment of the hobby. The Study Group's explanation, and especially that of Juhl, are terrific. I wonder now that I couldn't understand what Gibbons meant, but then Gibbons' brief note wasn't nearly so clear.

I love the designs of the Australian colonies, and particularly the swans of Western Australia. I've got only a few so far and now realize that, because of this watermark question, what I'd thought were duplicates may well not be. Glad also to have learned that the image is a poetic evocation of the region's major river. Looking forward to getting more examples.

And thanks again for all you do.
Eric

Mighty fine words there Eric, Thank you.

Watch those duplicates !
the next discipline we may be able to hook you to, is POSTMARKS
They can be a good source of interest and value.
I am fortunate to have a colleague, in the next town over whom shares
a similar collection as mine, so it is great fun.

If you need a Postmark ID for West Aust, just holler.

Eric,

SG's notes about upright, inverted, sideways and reversed suggest there is not much added value in them. I always saw that it meant such differentiation was beyond the scope of the catalogue.

MY understanding comes from my study of postage due issues from New South Wales and Victoria (and Australia).

Some sheets of watermarked paper were twice the size of the stamp printing plate. The sheet would be inserted and a sheet of stamps printed on one half. The sheet would be removed, turned and reinserted and the second sheet printed.

In this circumstance, the ratio of upright and inverted watermarks would be 50:50, so no rarity premium for either.

Other stamps were printed in tandem with other values so the top of the sheet might have one value, the bottom sheet another. The 1907 Australian postage dues are a case in point (SG D53-D57. Although an Australian issue, they were printed in New South Wales). There are five values in the series. Each of the ½d, 2d, 4d and 6d values were printed in a run of 12,000. The 1d value was printed in a run of 48,000. Each time any of the first mentioned four values were printed, this used half of the sheet. In the same printing action, the 1d value took up the other half. The number of 1d stamps printed equals the combined total of all the other values.

Understanding the process adopted for the printing of any issue you study is key to understanding the likely rarity of watermark variations.

Often reference is made to 'reversed watermarks'. The proper description for these is 'printed on the wrong side of the paper).

Nice explanation, John. Gibbons rather gave the impression that Australian printers were simply inattentive or careless. You make it clear that they'd merely adopted a method for dealing with oversized sheets. I wonder now, how did it happen that these sheets were too large for the printing plate? Were they imported sheets, improperly sized? Or were local printers just using what was available at the moment? Or was there perhaps an economic incentive in making large sheets?

P.S. I've sent you a couple of emails re: the scans you'd like.

Eric

Eric,

Taking Victoria as an example (because this is where I have the best information contained in Kellow's fantastic book, "The Stamps of Victoria", RPSoV, Melbourne 1990) all stamps (with only two exceptions) were printed in Victoria. The basic 'V over Crown' paper appeared in five versions. De La Rue in London supplied the paper with the V1 watermark, V2 was also from De La Rue, needed because the V1 dandy roll has become worn. Waterlow and Sons of London produced the V3 paper. V4 was a new Waterlow and Sons dandy roll and V5 was from James Spicer and Sons, London.

The last three were supplied in sheets of 480 watermarks, so sheets of stamps occupied only half of the sheet.


I'll see what I can dig out for the WA stamps after my morning walk.