King George V Sideface Varieties

Point taken. The stamp is a Small Multiple perf 13½ x 12½ with thicker than usual "three pence", but there I am stuck. It could be 93, 94 (1)la. I think.

Back to cancels, but on a KGVs. I do like this one from Copmanhurst NSW Ju 14 1919.

Numerical Cancels wer fine while they were all Vic. Can someone identify this 54 for me please. Vic or NSW

Guess: one of these
Carrington
R. Pyrmont
Macclesfield
Sorrell
longford
Collingwood
Kilmore

Boreraig,
Your 54 is the from the third duplex cancellation of Kilmore, Victoria.

Your thick halfpence looks like it is 1R19 (ACSC 93(1)la for small multiple watermark) as you suspected. The image of the entire stamp allows the thicker white border at top left to be seen.

Very nice Copmanhurst 'socked on the nose' postmark - Type 1D(i) used from 1905-1921.

I thought this one would be easy. The NE corner and the LIA were give aways. But I can't find it. HELP????

Sorry I forgot to say. The LIA and NE corner is a Single Watermark

I think I have it. ACSC 85(7)m "Right side of cliche damaged by many flaws." There is also a white flaw on the head. Yes/ No/ Maybe

I'm going to say no. The picture in ACSC for 85(7)m shows flaws in different areas.

I would say that you have a "tin shed flaw". Put that into the Search Function and you should see some interesting things.

Thanks partime. I went back to page 13 of this thread and found:


I am going through dozens of my fathers stamps and I think you might be right. I know I soaked paper off one stamp and was pleasantly surprised that I had a found a flaw he had missed. It could be this one. (He often pencilled on the back.)

I read "many flaws" as many "different" flaws
Please keep replying everyone. Starting today I am officially in palliative care and sorting dad's stamps and waiting for your responses makes my day.

Sorry to read that you are unwell, Boreraig.

It is true that our greatest of all hobbies can bring a welcome diversion and occupation of the mind when we need it the most.

May it bring you much enjoyment while you are in the best of care.

Thanks Fairdinkum. I have another one, it is a Single watermark with a flaw on the R but according to ACSC it is not 85(4)e, not 85(7)j and not 85(12)m.
Any suggestions please or is it another "tin shed".

It looks a brighter white than the stamp so my guess is that it's a stray bit of something stuck to the surface. Hold the stamp up with backlight and if the 'white flaw' appears dark then its a bit of gunk stuck on the stamp.

I also need to chime in with Get Well Soon. At least you are able to enjoy your hobby during these trying times.




The ACSC catalogues have improved over the years, with lovely color scans of many of the flaws that they have decided to include. The descriptions of such flaws are sometimes simplified, so you need to read the description, any extra footnotes, and view the scan. I've also found that you need to have the exact location and approximately the same size of the flaw to qualify as such. However, new flaws can be found, and there are sometimes intermediate stages of such a flaw, so you have lots of things to search for. Take care.

Edit: I have some PDF's of some literature that may help you in your search. You can email me through the system, or turn on your settings to allow emails, if interested.

I have been making up two display sheets of 1½ browns, (for my own enjoyment), one with "faults" and one of Odds and Sods. The trouble is I have had it wrong. I have been going through dad's stamps and rejoicing every time I came across something not listed in ACSC, like my two mangy emu's, (which are most likely due to "dry ink'' and probably occurred once and never again). Everyday faults like No top to crown I have been relegating to Odds and Sods. If I am reading the replies correctly, by definition, a flaw occurs regularly, so No top to crown belongs on the main sheet while pregnant kangaroo and mangy emu's go to Odds and Sods. Please, no one say it doesn't matter, I'll have fun moving things around.