| Author |
Replies: 7 / Views: 1,026 |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1496 Posts |
|
|
Here are two examples of Victoria 1899 1p Queen Victoria (Scott 181). The first example is normal; the second example has a large chunk of the outer frame missing near the upper right corner.   I purchased the EFO example from a recent APS sales circuit. I don't have any information regarding this variety so I'm reaching out to the community. What can you tell me about this stamp? Is it a recognized variety, and, of course, the value? Thanks, Robert
|
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by Trainwreck - 01/10/2022 6:59 pm |
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
928 Posts |
|
|
Trainwreck,
I have not seen any literature that examines the varieties on this stamp in detail.
Geoff Kellow's 'The Stamps of Victoria' mentions some sub-type varieties involving colour flaws but there is no mention of the frame break on your stamp.
Those colour flaws are also listed in the 2004 Australian Commonwealth Specialists Catalogue under the olive-green 1901 issue of this stamp.
Perhaps there is another study 'out there' that provides a more comprehensive listing of the constant flaws. If so, hopefully a member will post the reference.
|
Send note to Staff
|
https://www.fairdinkumstamps.com Fair Dinkum Stamps - Specialising in stamps from early Australia and the colonies, Australian philatelic literature, catalogues, stockbooks and accessories. |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
977 Posts |
|
|
Trainwreck,
It is clear that the right frame is distorted, a nice flaw.
I haven't seen a monograph an this value so I expect there are lots of flaws to be identified.
John |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
Australia
38679 Posts |
|
|
Radical ! A keeper. I checked around 300 of my duplicates, only one with any interest may be this one, being an early state? or just rubbish on plate, whom knows. Yours appears LISMOREthis CAMBERWELL |
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1496 Posts |
|
|
All, thanks for your inputs. Very much appreciated.
I hadn't started tackling the postmark yet, so, thanks rod222. The date seems to be Oct. 31, 1899. Would the date on the first example I showed be March 9, 190...?
Robert |
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by Trainwreck - 01/11/2022 10:36 am |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
8956 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock Of The Community
Australia
38679 Posts |
|
|
I agree with Peter, No year date visible. (perhaps the loop of a single "9")
However I would guess October 31st (with you Robert)
I see OC for October, and a VERY faint 31 |
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by rod222 - 01/11/2022 2:38 pm |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Australia
928 Posts |
|
|
Quote: Would the date on the first example I showed be March 9, 190...? Yes, that's correct. The date format for those Melbourne cancellers is day - month - year, so 9 - 3 - 0_ is 9th March, 190_ . |
Send note to Staff
|
https://www.fairdinkumstamps.com Fair Dinkum Stamps - Specialising in stamps from early Australia and the colonies, Australian philatelic literature, catalogues, stockbooks and accessories. |
|
| |
Replies: 7 / Views: 1,026 |
|