| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 1,774 |
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Israel
1216 Posts |
|
|
SG's report was based on the altered WMs that were found and published. If we assume that the same machine created the WM errors in Bahamas, Perlis, St. Kitts-Nevis, and Singapore during 1950 - 1952, it is not unlikely that the machine was assigned for Nyasaland stamps during 1953. The fact that the Nyasaland errors appeared when the other errors ended - supports this hypothesis. |
Send note to Staff 
|
| Edited by Rob Roy - 07/18/2023 5:01 pm |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United Kingdom
8579 Posts |
|
|
But the Nyasaland watermark isn't an error - no-one added the wrong crown. It may be evidence of a repair to the equipment, but it's the correct crown. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
6526 Posts |
|
|
Rob Roy,
Your stamp is not in any way the error mentioned by SG.
Machines are irrelevant. This is a question of what dandy roll was used. One dandy roll can have been used on different machines. Different dandy rolls can have been used on the same machine.
You may be right that the dandy roll that had the error and then incorrect St. Edward's Crown was used for the paper for this printing, but only after the error would have been corrected. This is highly speculative.
SG does not mention what happened after 1952. The dandy roll may have been destroyed in 1952. The bit may have been replaced by a correct one in 1952/1953.
The gap between printing and issue may vary. A QE II stamp issued 1953 may have been printed in 1952 on paper made in 1947. A GVI stamp issued 1950 may have been printed in 1953 - if no QEII stamp had been prepared at the time - on paper produced in 1953.
The use of another dandy roll that had a replacement bit even before 1950 would also be supported by the timeline. That, also, holds for the theory that a completely new dandy roll was used or that an old dandy roll was used that always had a slightly different bit.
At best, the timeline does not disprove the hypothesis. I would not say it supports it as there are other possible explanations that are equally 'supported.'
It, really, would require further research. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Israel
1216 Posts |
|
|
So the general view is that what I have is a result of a slightly damaged crown, that has enough resemblance to the original crown to rule out the possibility of a different crown? |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
434 Posts |
|
|
@NSK Thanks very much for the excellent analysis, and for getting things back on the straight and narrow, it seems as if I hurtled down the wrong rabbit hole. Quote:
Looking at that image: SG mentions 1950 - 1952, which is George VI, not Elizabeth II. I can't believe that I missed that, my only excuse being that I have been in bed with a bad dose of flu for the last few days and wasn't thinking too clearly. Clive |
|
Send note to Staff
|
AlbumEasy - Free software for creating custom stamp album pages ChromaMate - Compare, match, analyse, free colour matching software ImageSleuth - Images, hidden inside images, revealed. A retroReveal alternative PSGSA - The Philatelic Society for Greater Southern Africa |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
6526 Posts |
|
|
Quote:
rule out the possibility of a different crown? 100% certainty. The first part of your statement cannot be denied or confirmed without further research. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by NSK - 07/19/2023 02:15 am |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
6526 Posts |
|
|
Quote:
I can't believe that I missed that, my only excuse being that I have been in bed with a bad dose of flu for the last few days and wasn't thinking too clearly. It took me a while as well. The picture I found put me on that track. We were focusing on the watermark, the reign was not relevant to the issue discussed. The watermark was used for both reigns. Who knows! Someone may find the error on a QEII stamp one day. Edit issue discussed to clarify 'issue' |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by NSK - 07/19/2023 02:27 am |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Israel
1216 Posts |
|
|
I don't understand the significance of George or Betty:
The error was reported regarding the years 1950 - 1952, KG6. Had the error continued to exist the next year, 1953, that would have been Elizabeth II. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Netherlands
6526 Posts |
|
|
Hence Quote:
Who knows! Someone may find the error on a QEII stamp one day. I am not aware of any QEII stamps with the error. But the Empire and Commonwealth ends with the accession of Lilibet. Finding an Elizabeth II stamp with the wrong crown, however, would be a strong indication the crown was not replaced before the Nyasaland stamps were printed. The consequence would be your stamp was not prepared with the dandy roll in question. But that is all "if ...." |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by NSK - 07/19/2023 02:56 am |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Israel
1216 Posts |
|
|
Regarding the true error of replacing the crown, here is what a member of RSC, Rhodesian Study Circle, had to say about it. They responded very fast. Quote:
The background to tis is quite well known. I think it was basically a case of human error or simply using the watermark bit they had to hand (the bit design had changed".
The error is found with the Crown missing and with the wrong replacement crown. It is only known on de la Rue printed stamps.
One also has to keep in mind that the paper used by the Crown Agents was standard and would be used by the printers (DLR) over various countries / print orders / etc. Hence it is not surprising that the "error" is found for a number of countries.
It is mostly found on the various postage due issues (but also on the definitive $1 and $2 of Singapore and the St. Kitts 1950 Tercentenary issue).
From the Rhodesia's and Nyasaland, the errors only come on the Northern Rhodesia postage dues (the chalky paper printings - from 1952 from memory). The Nyasaland postage dues - similar design were printed too early - 1950 before the missing crown was noted and the bit replaced.
The error is analogous to the missing A varieties found on various King George VI definitives - e.g., Antigua, Cayman Islands, Ceylon, etc. In the case of Nyasaland this comes on a number of low values - 1d, 1 1/2d, and both 2d. As more people look for the variety, I am sure it will be found on other stamps printed in the appropriate time period (1941-1943). I have not studied the specific printing dates that it is found on so this is something of a guess on my part.
The thing which is odd is that a missing A is also found on some of the 1949 U.P.U. commemoratives including the Nyasaland 1d. Now the obvious question is whether this was the same missing A or a different missing A - I don't know. Would the paper have been produced over such a long period with the missing watermark bit - probably unlikely. If it were found on other issues such as the 1946 Victory this might help to answer that question. Thus far, it has not been found on any of those stamps. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Replies: 25 / Views: 1,774 |
|
Posted 07/18/2023 4:56 pm
