World Classic Doppelgängers

By the by, I've been busy accumulating all of the values of a beautiful and extraordinary set released by Russia, but it's going to remain a surprise until I showcase them within this sub-forum in the near future. It's a set that I've been wanting for years, and now I've finally gotten round to it.

Knock yourselves out! Twelve different stamps.

I've collected only a smattering of the first printings(1912) of those, and differentiating between them has been somewhat difficult for me, and is still...

Indeed, let others knock themselves out on those.

I'm not interested at all in the subsequent printings of those definitives, from 1924 to 1936, the second and third "fiddles"; although I do have a few, but only to drive me towards the first printings, inexorably.

Incidentally, here are the watermarks to help sort through them...

There are two more watermarks for that stamp and it still will not help you to identify one for what you call the first printing. There is a 'Multiple Script Lettering' as well.

As for 'printing,' from the perspective of the GPO, the 'Royal Cypher' and 'Block Cypher' are not different stamps.

There were several printings of the 'Royal Cypher' stamps. The 'Block Cypher' stamps were nowhere near a 'second' printing. They are closer to a 25th printing. And I am using 'closer to' loosely, as a control does not constitute a printing.

I was not thinking about the "Downey heads", in that, as you had not mentioned same until now, but yes, there is that style. I have only one of those, I think, and a doppelgänger among those issues.

Then, I was not referring to the sub-printings of the others, either.

Incidentally, has anyone identified the doppelgänger of the pair in question; first things first.

A printing is a printing, not a sub-printing. They require separate orders to the printers. Printings are a primary source for 'shades.'

And I am referring to the 'MacKennals,' not the 'Downey Heads.'

Which watermark do some or all of these exhibit...

...SG #103, perchance?

Also, is this watermark the other, the third and last of the script style, SG #110...

The photogravure issues of the MacKennals only exist with the (multiple) 'Block Cypher' watermark. That is the same as for the latter typography issues of the MacKennals.

As for the watermarks I was referring to in my earlier post, it refers to the typography stamps (1912 -1934) up to 1s, so the smaller format stamps; i.e., the ones you posted.

StampGuy,
Seeking clarification ... By your thinking, is the original printing/issue always the "winner" and all subsequent varieties are doppelgangers without regard to any other features? Or....?

No, there are also other variables that designate a stamp as the doppelganger.

So it is a matter of your opinion which is greater/lesser than the other?
Without a clear definition is it a guessing game?

I do not have a Commonwealth Catalogue, but anyone who has might want to check if there exists a watermark variety. The DLR typographed stamps required sheets to be fed the correct way up. If fed inverted, the watermark will be inverted. Offset watermarks and margin watermarks are also possibilities.

Someone suggested the shades, but apparently that was not the clue.

Thanks for posting this. I have been completely confused about this thread from the very beginning. One definition of Doppelganger is that it is identical to the original, but (in a human) is the spiritual opposite or negative. It could also be a ghostly double or counterpart. So, perhaps there is no way of telling the difference between the two, hence, this is a useless phrase to use for stamps.

Instead, what I am reading about are different watermarks, paper types, inks, printers, etc. Those are things which can be defined, and so are not considered to be "identical" to the original. I do like seeing the subtle differences that printers take, though, so let's keep this party going.