Australia Scott 21 With Significant Roller Flaw

OK, definitely need help from my Aussie friends. This is Scott OB21 and "probably" is Scott Die 1a, the roller flaw below the left numeral 1. However, none of the illustrations in my ACSC show such a significant flaw. Usually, the flaw is just a tiny spur, and there are many styles. Based on ACSC, this is probably ACSC 71bb (punctured OS), but the spur really bothers me. Any help would be appreciated.

Not seen before.
Looks like a combination of the "Erect Die ll Flaw" (Pane 2 #51)
AND
the "Recumbent Die 2 Flaw" (Pane 2 #57)

Erect =45 degrees
Recumbent = 42 degrees
(Wager and Monk)

D M Neil gives a long winded discussion on the history, of the vertical rows of these stamps, and frankly, I am having a hard time understanding it.

When time permits, I'll post a pic of the page..........

Note: You also have a void, top left "P" of POSTAGE, possibly rubbish on the plate.

It is with deep regret, to learn that Mr. Kellow is not responding to emails.
If that were my stamp, I would be emailing Philas House in New South Wales.
Enquiring if there were any King George V Sideface, experts whom may opine on your example.

https://www.philas.net.au/contacts

Thanks for the contact. I sent an email and am looking forward to a reply.

Me too.
I do not see any evidence of that damage in any of my resources.

It appears unique at this time, and perhaps, go a long way to
identifying the correct theory on how the damage to the Die l eventuated.
(The die ll is erroneous, it is a damaged Die 1)

To be frank, I am rather excited to hear from the experts.

Wager / Monk
Genesis of the Die ll

The conundrum from my perspective, lies in the overall state of the 1d impression.
Yours looks in very fine shape, very few, if any other flaws in existance in your scan.
The frame is true and accurate.

If, it is the second theory, a crack in the surface of the value shield, then your would appear to be a very late and expanded crack.
That does not make sense to me. Other examples would have been recorded.

It would tend to prefer the third theory, (a fault in the transfer roller) (splinter)

Forarmed is forwarned.
Suggested checking.
Area of damage is lack of ink, not scuffed or manipulated.
Guage is 14 comb, not single line and not 14.25 x 14
(Holes slightly smaller)
Presumed surfaced paper
Estimated Colour?
Inverted or reversed watermarks ?
Paper? mediumly thin, wove paper.
Postmark ? considered washed, or attempt at removal?
Official Punctures, 8.5mm high, width of O 6mm, s 5.5mm, total width 15.5mm Pin holes number correctly.

Hello Rod. Always good items to check:

Area of damage is lack of ink, not scuffed or manipulated.
(Appears to be lack of ink. No scuffing from side angles.)

Guage is 14 comb, not single line and not 14.25 x 14
(When compared to others, matches to ACSC 71, Comb 14.25 x 14)

(Holes slightly smaller)
(No comment)

Presumed surfaced paper
(No comment)

Estimated Colour?
(Difficult to say. Color appears to be "standard" so would assume Carmine Red)

Inverted or reversed watermarks ?
(Normal Watermark)

Paper? mediumly thin, wove paper.
(I'm not a paper guy, so cannot comment)

Postmark ? considered washed, or attempt at removal?
(Does not appear to be washed or attempted removal. Previous owner probably just thought a damaged, normal stamp. But the area of interest is definitely under the cancellation, so was there before sending through the mail.)

That's all for now.

I'll email "Aussie Al"
he is a resident SCF KGV Sideface expert.
See if he has any comment.

Comb 14 perforations also are found cancelled with dates of later months in 1914.
The comb machine when first used, and other comb machines used later, guaged about 14.25 x 14.
The holes were very slightly smaller, and alignment more accurate, than the case with the single line perf 14 sheets.

DM Neil
1d surface printed types 1914 to 1937
Page 33

Rod,

Philas House was very quick to respond, so thanks for the link.

"Your query has been referred to me for assistance.

What you have is a small "tin shed or rust " flaw.

These occurred when a small bit of glue adhered to the plates at time of printing. After usage when the stamp was soaked from the envelope, the glue was removed leaving an area of the design which shows a gap. This less frequently also occurs where a piece of foreign material e.g. a small piece of paper or cotton thread, was on the the plate at the time of printing and subsequently fell off.

They are usually non constant and are quite frequently found particularly on smooth paper stamps. The flaws can vary in size, with the larger ones being very collectible.

Although it is difficult to shade a stamp from a scan, your stamp is not a rough paper G71 but a smooth paper. It is likely to be a G16.

Hope this helps.

Regards
Gordon Towell"

Since the flaw seems to be below the cancellation, I would concur with a foreign piece of material on the plate when printed.

So, a mystery solved and into the album it goes.

Wow! Wow!
That is marvelous Steve,
Bravo to all concerned.

Fabulous information saved.

Note:
The flaws can vary in size, with the larger ones being very collectible.