Natal : Unknown Colourless Embossing.

These 2 are well out of my league.
Welcome all input.
Cannot see the Natal anywhere.
Similar to Sc#7 but a different Crown
Update: Checked Barefoot, embossed crown do exist on embossed revenues directly onto documents (ergo, produce cut outs) but 1d Yellow not listed Barefoot.

Transvaal I have as a would be Sc#200
Presuming both are forgeries.
Thanks.
Yellow line from y scanner.

I think it is a cute forgery..
Types..

Some documentation

http://natalia.org.za/Files/7/Natal...8-33%20C.pdf

Printers waste?

I don't have the Scott catalogue, but for your second stamp look under Pietersburg in either SG or the South Africa Colour Catalogue.

Issued in 1901, it is the 2d black on orange.
There are three different types identified by the size of the 1901 and the 'P' in Postzegel. Depending on type your example would be sg28, sg29 or sg30 catalogued at between £5.50 and £14.

All issued stamps, except for remainders, were initialled by the Controller as can be seen in your example. Remainders have been found with forged initials.

Clive

Thanks everyone, top stuff.
NSK, your link does not work, however I found the route via wiki...thank you very much, a nice *.pdf

Quote:
A Id. value was added to the series early in 1858, the die for this stamp being somewhat smaller than the other dies and not containing the letters V.R.; the style of lettering was also different. It is not known where this die came from, but it was certainly not as well executed as the other dies.
At the outset the Id. die was impressed on blue paper, but later rose paper was used and then buff, presumably to use up stocks of paper left over from the other stamps

"Printers waste" is a consideration, I am just troubled by the crown having oblique shading, none of the images from catalogues show this.

Clive, thanks, shall accept as SG29 with a red flag (dubious)
(small "1901", capital "P" in postzegel)

Rod, your Pietersburg looks genuine. It's the second setting, SG29. Shame it's damaged on the right side. They were issued in sheets of 24 (4 rows x 6 columns), and this setting is from the second row (large P in Postzegel, large date and stop after date).

There are innumerable varieties of the Pietersburg stamps, which makes them fun to collect. They were printed from a forme composed of 73 parts, and considering they were a wartime provisional I think that the stamps are a masterpiece of the printer's art.

The controller J.V. DeSmit signed every single one of them himself! All issues are signed "downwards" in black ink except the 1/2d (and very rarely, 2d) which can be signed "upwards"; the 1/2d also pops up with red signatures with a thinner nib, mostly "downwards" but some are "upwards". A useful tip for spotting forgeries. Any stamps (except the 1/2d) with no signature are from stock looted by the invading British troops on 8th April, when the printing works were destroyed, were never issued and cannot be considered proper stamps. However, a few sheets of the 1/2d were legitimately issued without deSmit's signature.

The first issue was issued imperforate but for some reason we don't know yet, the second issue was only perforated 11-1/2 on three sides (probably due to limits on the perforating machine) and imperforate horizontally. Any stamp whih you see perforated on 4 sides is a forgery.

The Natal looks like a reprint to me: the image is a bit too clear and the colour too good. They are a right minefield. Best not to go there...

Am I having a hard day?
Scott notes that #193 to #201 inclusive are always imperforate on 1 side.

Mine is Sc#200 (A19) =SG#29 (P2)

If the Forme was 6 x 4 stamps, the 3rd row being (P2)
Does it not follow, that the 2 4 internal stamps of that row, should be perforate on all sides?

What am I missing here?

(Awaiting an embarassing correction )


UPDATE
Tim H solved it

Forbin lists it, I think:
https://archive.org/details/ForbinF...603/mode/2up
The description of the 1869 1d means only the surface is colored. There is a yellow one listed.

The illustrations in Barefoot and Forbin are old images or even drawings and won't show detail like the pattern in the cloth part of the crown.

Thank you HB, makes sense,
I am taking Tim's advice, and leaving well alone
For the record: