George VI Era Cochin - Mostly Used

Tony/Thomas

On the catalog mismatches I also possess a full sheet of SG-22 with rare type7b surcharge(SG22c) where the wmk shows as sideways inverted and Gibbons says this only exist with a sideways wmk. Have sent this sheet image to SG and waiting for their reply

George

Here is George's block of SG 120



George: if you go to the Uploading Photos link under Tutorials at the left of the screen, that will show you how to do it. It's quite simple, once you get the hang of it!

I agree that most of the flaws on the litho printings of Cochin are really only of specialist interest, but some of the more spectacular ones, like the 'tail to turban' really do deserve catalogue status. I do still think this one:



with the flaw to the mouth, is good enough to deserve listing. But then, I'm biased - I have it in a positional block and on cover

George, if the old theory that only one sheet of SG 92c ever existed is accurate, and none of the old-time specialists had ever seen a mint copy of it, then Gibbons were probably justified in marking the mint price with a dagger. However, if a mint copy exists, and it has a BPA Certificate, that would mean that Phillip Kinns has seen and passed it. That in turn would mean that Gibbons will probably remove the dagger at some stage - though they may only replace it with a dash, of course

There are still a great many gaps in Gibbons. The first two issues of Barwani still aren't listed, for example, and Kotah and Tonk aren't even in the catalogue at all. It's frustrating, but until the Indian States carry greater weight in the collecting world, we'll just have to wait for our turn in the catalogue revisions. On the up side, Gibbons is still far superior to any of its competitors on the Indian States ... and it has come a very long way from the very simplified listings it used to have. (I know: I got them to thoroughly overhaul their listing of Barwani pre-1932 back in 1984.)

George, you might have trouble convincing Gibbons to list this one. I notice they don't list any other inverted watermarks in the Cochin Government printings. Gibbons only seem to list inverted watermarks in the Perkins, Bacon and Amalgamated Printers printings on the Small Umbrella watermarked paper.

George, you might have trouble convincing Gibbons to list this one. I notice they don't list any other inverted watermarks in the Cochin Government printings. Gibbons only seem to list inverted watermarks in the Perkins, Bacon and Amalgamated Printers printings on the Small Umbrella watermarked paper.


Tony
I do agree with your viwes but atleast they can remove/correct the foot note after SG22

Rgds
George

you will be waiting a long time Tony especially if you are looking for a certified copy.

George, I'd like to see Gibbons insert a general comment on watermarks in the Indian States, like the one they have for the Australian States:
"Some stamp printers in the Australian colonies paid little attention to the position of the watermark in the sheets they produced ... In such circumstances it is impossible to provide adequate prices for such items so only watermark varieties occurring on stamps printed in Great Britain are included in the following listings.'

Otherwise, I suppose it's up to us as collectors to provide the factual background to allow Gibbons to decide whether to list watermark varieties on specific stamps. I have to admit, I've never even looked at the positions of the watermarks in my copies of Cochin SG 22. It might require a concerted search by collectors of their copies to establish how rare your variety is. Have you spoken to John Trowbridge about it?

Dear Tony

You are absolutely right, and I dont think SG will never list the item but may be they could change the footnote, by the way I heard that Mr.Trowbridge had limited his activities due to old age and he is not accessible on mail.has anybody got mail communications with him in near past pls let me know his mail id

Rgds
George

Hi Tony / George

Got this yesterday.
Is it 109 or 109b



Waiting nervously

Thomas

Hi Tony / George

Got this yesterday.
Is it 109 or 109b



Waiting nervously

Thomas

Sorry, Thomas, it's a Die I, I'm afraid.

Die II is on the left, Die I is on the right:



You'll see the whole head is larger on the Die II.

Hi Tony and George

Cochins have taken a rest it seems.....

As I had mentioned in my other post in "George V" thread.. got a lot of 100 Cochins recently. Found these in the lot :

Hope that these have made the deal worth it
Regards
Thomas

And further....
They send me this as a complimentary gift :

mentioning as error in the "G" of the left stamp of the pair...
Any feedback on this is welcome.
Regards
Thomas

Thomas, I have some bad news for you. I'm pretty certain the SG O65 is a fake. The surcharge has been added onto a used copy of SG O52. If you look at it under magnification, you'll see that the letters, particularly the Es, aren't exactly the same as on the other stamp, and that the surcharge appears to lie over the postmark, not under it as it should, and as the ON C G S overprint certainly does.

Your 3 Pies pair is a nice one though. Gibbons mentions the 'flat back to G': they say it occurs twice in each sheet of 48. Here is my example, on the 2 Anna: