Nyasaland Watermark Identification

Hi.
I have these Nyasaland pair of stamps, 1953, Scott 102, SG 178.
When I looked at the back, the watermarks didn't seem identical.
The online catalogs refer only to one watermark for these stamps, and my simple Scot and SG catalogs ignore Nyasaland WM altogether.
Did anyone else witness such variety in WM of old African British colonies, or any?
Thanks

After the dandy-roll used to impress the "Multiple Script CA" watermark such as used on these stamps, suffered damage causing a crown to come off, an incorrect crown was then inadvertently added to the dandy-roll, which led to watermark varieties.

However, although SG notes that this affected the stamps of a number of territories during 1950 - 1952, they don't specifically mention Nyasaland so what you are seeing may have some other cause.

To help identify the watermarks, I have used ImageSleuth (link in the signature below) to enhance the image.


Clive

A few images of Dandy Rollers used in paper watermarking


Don

Aaaayyyy, this is sooo cooooooool (my sincere apologies, been watching too many anima's lately, and this is how they talk).

Clive, what territories did Scot attribute these errors to? South Africa area's colonies and protectorates?
Out of 180 years of stamp printing, how can this error be restricted to just a few years?
Is this a collectible error? Does it add to the stamp value?

Don, how does the second item work? Without reference scale, my imagination has fit a whole postal worker into that cylinder.
As for the first roller, above the "LUX ET VERITAS" there's a Hebrew writing saying "Urim and Thummim"
In the Hebrew Bible, they are elements of the breastplate worn by the High Priest. They are connected with cleromancy.
Urim and Thummim has traditionally been translated as "lights and perfections" (by Theodotion, for example), or, by taking the phrase allegorically, as meaning "revelation and truth" (thank you wiki). That takes us back to the Latin inscription "Light and Truth".
Is this a WM of The Vatican stamps?

Did the Crown Agents prepare the watermarked paper in advance, or was it typically produced only in anticipation of a new or reprinted issue? Was any change made during WWII in terms of how far in advance the paper was prepared?

Sorry I should have been more specific, SG is Stanley Gibbons, I don't actually have a Scott catalogue.

In the introduction to the SG Commonwealth and Empire Catalogue, I have the 2020 edition, under the General Philatelic Information section it says that the error affected the stamps of Bahamas, Perlis, St. Kitts-Nevis and Singapore.

They don't mention Nyasaland, however, it seems that your stamp may have the watermark error, so perhaps is unlisted.

Thanks for clarifying that, I had thought that it looked like Hebrew, but, unlike the Latin script, my Hebrew isn't good enough to read in mirror image :)
The shield watermark, would I think be too large for a stamp, so could have been used to watermark sheets of paper as is often the case with high-quality writing paper.

A few minutes with Google and I discovered that the shield is the Yale University Coat of Arms

Clive

Thank you for the info, Clive.
Was the error only with these two WM? Does it mean that the stamps were all printed in one place and distributed from there to Singapore and the Caribians and, now we know, to Nyasaland?
Should SG or whatever philatelic entity be notified?
As for the Hebrew letters, it would have been impossible to identify them for those that don't use Hebrew: The letters were inverted, and stylish, like Gothic German.

I am sure that there were probably other watermark errors, but none that I know of.
Most smaller British Colonies and Territories would have had their stamps printed in Britain, I believe that this particular set of stamps was printed by Bradbury Wilkinson.

Whereas larger entities such as South Africa or Canada often had their own printers.

Perhaps try contacting the Rhodesian Study Circle

Clive

Thank you Clive, I've mailed them.
In case they won't respond or won't be interested, In my SG 2014 (over)simplified catalog's introduction, they mention a Lady Lorraine Holcombe for correspondence. Is she still mentioned in your 2020 catalog?

Does anyone have an example of an erroneous watermark in their collection?

That is not what is shown in the pictures in this thread. What is shown here is a variety. It may have occurred because of a repair.

The watermark error variety the Stanley Gibbons catalogue mentions and illustrates exists in two phases.

First, a crown fell off the dandy roll. This gave the first state of the error: a completely missing crown.
Second, the crown was replaced with a 'St. Edward's Crown' giving the second state of the error: St. Edward's Crown.

All posts in this thread show the crown used for the 'Multiple Crowns' watermark.



The red arrows point at arches above the lower row of arches in both watermarks. The St. Edward's Crown does not have arches there.
The blue arrows point at continuous rows of arches in both watermarks. The St. Edward's Crown has only two two-tiered arches that are separated.

To clarify: maybe the erroneous bit was replaced with a correct crown at a later stage. The new bit may have been slightly different. That would be a minor variety SG does not list.

But a similar thing may have occurred due to wear.

NSK, do you think that if I used WM fluid it would have looked more like the original and less like an error?

Nope. The crown is different from the others. However, it is the same type of crown.
It is quite normal for bits of a dandy roll to be repaired or replaced when they are used over a long period of time.
Sometimes, the replacement bit is slightly different from the original.

Look at the specialised listing for the King George V Mackennals with 'Simple Cypher' watermark. The watermark shows variation over time.
This looks like a minor variety: repair, replacement, maybe even after the error was discovered. (I do not know.)

It, however, is not the variety mentioned in the SG catalogue clivel refers to. That is a completely different type of crown known as 'St. Edward's Crown' and that sticks out among the 'correct' crowns. But it may be the corrected variety.

SG is unlikely to list or even mention such a minor variety. It would be mentioned in a specialised catalogue.

This is the error (central crown in the lower row):

Looking at that image: SG mentions 1950 - 1952, which is George VI, not Elizabeth II.