Was There A Catalog Number Change? Older GB Qv Items

Came across the attached while sorting. Listed on the cards as SG 48 - but clearly they are not. SG 48 is 1/2d. Just a previous owner mistake ?? Also, what does ' MM ' next to the plate numbers mean?

Thank you.

I don't have an answer on the first part as I'm not near my current or older SG's but I would guess MM might mean "mounted mint"?

'MM,' as stamps101 correctly writes, is an abbreviation for 'mounted mint:' i.e. hinged with gum.

My 1989 SG catalogues list the 1/2 d as number 48. It looks like '43' became '48'. Either the person who wrote it writes a '3' very similar to an '8', or that person used a written list on which this occurred.

The 2020 Specialised Vol. 1, Part 1 lists the plate 110 at £ 80.
The 2001 Specialised Vol. 1, Ed. 12 lists it at £ 22.

That £ 65 catalogue reference would be between 7 and 3 years old.

Are the second and third stamps actually mint? May just be the unclear photos, but they appear to have traces of cancellations.

I've got a 1930 SG Part 1 and this stamp was SG43 back then.

I haven't looked closely yet for cancels, etc. There does seem to be darker areas - bits - something - that stands out a tad on the fronts. Here are the backs though. Im curious too...

PD



PE

The watermark tends to show from the front. In some pictures, this looks like there is a trace of a cancellation. There, however, is some trace of oxidation in the lower left corner of that third stamp. Edit: nope, still the watermark.
To me, these look unused.

Those plate 110 stamps were described as 'fine.' Neither of the two stamps are anywhere near fine. The fronts are ok. The backs are not.

The catalogue prices on the cards suggest these are from ca. 2015 - 2020. It is hard to imagine the backs of these stamps to have deteriorated so much in that period of time. Either the description was highly misleading, or the previous owner stored them in a cellar.

This is the kind of stuff they used to sell at the Strand Stamp Centre: cheap unmounted 'Penny Red Plates' that were nowhere near catalogue quality, and especially bad once you looked at the back.

Rule number 1: Always take previous identifications with a grain of salt and make independent verifications yourself.
And 2: Owners/sellers often have a higher opinion of their material as found in the grade or price.

These are dealer or auction cards.

These are Penny Reds with letters in all four corners, also known as 'Penny Red' plates. It looks like the last two, indeed, have the plate number 110 in the scrolling on each side. From that perspective, the person who wrote the card, identified the stamp correctly. The catalogue value you, probably, find in the last SG Specialised Vol. 1 published before 2020, or a SG Concise published between 2015 and 2020. Again, the stamp was identified correctly. Plate 110 is somewhat more expensive than many other plates from the same period.

It just is the SG number that is incorrect.

Many collectors use them too.

Not ordinarily in Europe, I think.

I agree with Geoff. I have not seen them other than from auctions, and, rarely, dealers.

My first impression when I see these cards if they are from Europe - SG reference in the US, considering how members here keep using Scott for GB material, appears doubtful - are postal auctions like Sandafayre, and, previously, SG Post Bid. Those two, however, would not sell stamps with these backs. But there remain enough discount dealers that run postal auctions. 'MM' for mounted mint, and 'unmounted mint' for mint, never hinged also are common in the UK.

On the other hand, stamp #1: "unmouted mint" must be a gum with some type of minty taste that does not contain 'mout'!?

Thanks for all the feedback. These were mixed in with a lot from GB, via California to me. Includes lots of stuff from different auctions - Mulreadyphilatelic amongst ebay stuff too. Always a kick to see what people think of their stuff and I was really wanting to verify cat number. To my inexperienced eyes I would not call them mint due to the backs alone. Not sure how the backs look so wrinkled and not the fronts. As mentioned, poor storage…..