Great Britain Philatelic Society

petrod

Dublin

petrod

I agree with Galveston: it is difficult to tell from the photo, but I am inclined to plump for a “K”. However, if that is the case this cannot be Plate 93 according to the criteria listed in “The Plating of the Penny”. It does not exhibit the following:- bottom of SW square extended, “I” tilted E, a...

petrod

In my own collection the only plate of which I do not have a copy with a Maltese cross cancellation (so far) in the group from 1a to 45, is 43. And of course SG Specialised does not mention MC cancellations after Plate 45. I have recently been given reason to believe that SG Specialised is not to be...

petrod

Thanks for that. Yes, I follow your reasoning, although I have never been able to understand why anyone would wish to re-gum them, unless to use them

petrod

I can find no information in the usual catalogues relating to ungummed, unused line engraved. I am particularly interested in the difference in valuation between 1d blacks with full gum, partial gum and no gum. Any ideas or info gratefully received.

petrod

Winston
I am pleased to say that I have now obtained a marginal mint copy of Plate 131 on lavender tinted thicker paper together with RPS Certificate. Comparing it with my Plate 136 block of 9 I can definitively state that the papers are identical.

petrod

I think it says “late”

petrod

Personally I should be surprised if there is any of the original gum left on this used example. But in my experience the original gum on unused stamps is nearly always of a yellowish tinge and cracked (from old age like me).

petrod

Thank you

petrod

Sorry, forgive my ignorance, but what is SG DP4?

petrod

Anyone seen this before? And does my explanation make sense?

petrod

I would refer you to Seymour’s “Stamps of Great Britain - Part II” Quote - “ Plates 69, 70, 75, 77, 126 and 128 were rejected owing to defects or unsuitable spacing for perforation”

petrod

Apologies for my typo. Of course I meant 1856, not 1866

petrod

And my answer to the general question about trusting the Victorian dates is “probably yes - as much as you can trust them from any era or country”, always with the proviso that faint or smudgy impressions should be treated with care as we are doing here.

petrod

Once again, I must concur with admin - it is definitely 1866 on the Burnley item. To my eye there is even a very faint impression of the curve which Mike has accentuated, and the suggested narrower gap between 5 & 6 is only apparent by virtue of an ink smudge on the right of the curve of the low...

petrod

Only 5?

petrod

The info in Brown/Fisher Vol 2 regarding Plate 91 OE is quite clear and backed up by the extension west of the top of OF.

petrod

Not sure about RA, but I would put money on the “Retford” one being OE from Plate 91

petrod

I am inclined to agree with Admin, though it would be interesting to compare contemporaneous examples of the 6 and 8 with the back stamps under discussion.

petrod

Since my last post I have searched very many dealers’ lists, catalogues, and other publications both hard copy and online, and failed to find a single illustration of, or reference to, this stamp. I have become inclined to think that it is in fact a non-coincident re-entry, and almost certainly from...

petrod

Thanks for your input Jim. I agree about the colour of the cancellations, although there are quite a few instances of the later use of red ink. And the strength of the letters is also a consideration. I was reluctant to rely entirely on Brown/Fisher measurements for plating as there is hardly any di...

petrod

IMG_20211015_0002.pdf Well, here we are. Firstly I am pretty sure it is not Plate 1b, rather Plate 5. And I am tempted to think from the black printing following the 3rd. (Provisional issue) repair, as related in Gibbons QV Vol I, Part I. Unfortunately I can find no illustration of this particular ...

petrod

Thanks very much for pointing me in the right direction. At first sight it looks as though the mark I referred to is absent from all the illustrated stamps, so it may be a one-off printing fault or more likely a usage mark of some sort. We shall see - I await delivery of the item with bated breath! ...

petrod

Does anyone have a copy of this stamp (in black)? If so I would appreciate seeing a scan because I am in the process of buying one on Ebay (said to be Plate 1b) which exhibits a distinctive mark in the margin above the NE star square. Until I have the item to hand I can not be certain that the mark ...

petrod

Sorry, it’s OK, I found out it’s Suez

petrod

Can anyone tell me where barred cancel “B 02” comes from?

petrod

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction jimw, managed to get quite a nice copy.

petrod

On re-examining ebay, I see what you mean. But they are all LC perforated, letters in four corners ( SG 43 /44). I am looking for Die I, Alph I, imperforate, watermark SC, (SG BS91).

petrod

I have been looking on eBay for a few days, but could not see any.

petrod

Looking for fine used example of Plate 117

petrod

Is there something special about Plate 117 (Alphabet I)?
I have at least one example of every plate from 1a to 131 in my collection, except for 117.
I have searched high and low for months, even Bill Barrell can’t find one.
Any ideas?

petrod

I am not sure whether anyone has noted this before. I had been idly perusing the “Varieties” section of the Introduction to Volume IV of The Plating of the Penny when I saw the reference under “Roller flaws” to 14 examples of the mark “at about 4 o’clock” in the NE star, said to occur in vertical co...

petrod

I should perhaps add that my criticism was not aimed at dealers’ prices for various plates but at the inconvenience caused to me when trying to “fill a hole”.

petrod

Mmm... There is absolutely no doubt that it is Plate 136, which Gibbons maintains was the last in the group of “lavender” tinted paper. I agree that colour perception is a very difficult area, and seems to be rather subjective, which is why I have for the most part ignored “shades” in my collection.

petrod

To be fair, I have found the majority of dealers’ offerings to be correctly attributed, and perhaps it is too much to expect 100% to be correct. But still, if any seller is unsure of the exact description of anything they sell, they should say so (one or two do). My own collection is heavily weighte...

petrod

I have managed to do a scan which more accurately represents the colour of the stamps, although it may be slightly on the bright side! Probably should spend some time on calibrating my screen, but rarely need great accuracy. When using Photoshop it is easy to compensate for these sorts of discrepanc...

petrod

Very interesting Andrew. The more we measure, the more confusing it seems to become. I attach scans of front and back of my piece and although the colour is not perfectly rendered, one can see that the paper is undoubtedly lavender both front and back.

Regards,

Peter

petrod

I have now measured the thickness of several used stamps in my collection from this group and find that they average .03 mm both lavender-tinted and less so. However in the block of 9, which are of course all mint with gum, they average .12 mm. I have done a similar exercise on mint and used stamps ...

petrod

On reflection, of course one could measure the thickness of the paper with a micrometer, but this would still not answer my question - "thicker than what?"

petrod

Thanks for your interest - look forward to your discoveries. In my case the shade of the paper is in no doubt; it is definitely lavender. But as to thickness...

petrod

I have just acquired a mint (og) block of 9 (RC - TE) in fine condition. They are of course on lavender-tinted paper. They were sold by a local dealer in antique items, obviously not a philatelist as they were advertised as from 1841. The gum is virtually undisturbed except for a couple of tiny wate...

petrod

Yes, I missed the reference in Gibbons to Plates 200 & 203 - was concentrating on 199 I suppose

petrod

I have no copies from Plate 200, but one (not AF) from Plate 199 - perforated. So far I can find no reference anywhere to imperforate copies from either plate.

petrod

Thanks again Mike. Unfortunately neither of the articles really help with my query. However, perhaps during the next eleven years I may have another brainwave! (See Postal History posts)

petrod

Thanks Mike. Any idea where I might find those issues of GSM? Unfortunately he reference to controls in Wiseman's book would be of no help in this case, as the controls are not on my piece.

petrod

I recently purchased a bottom (left) strip of 8 MUH which exhibits two cuts in the marginal rule. Does anyone know if there is any way of “plating” this issue as with the Edward VII and George V stamps?

petrod

I have been buying on ebay for many years and am often surprised by the number of incorrectly attributed plate numbers which appear in dealers’ offerings. My first encounter with this phenomenon was actually from a private member who incorrectly advertised a pair of blacks as being from Plate 6 when...

petrod

Winston,

Unfortunately, over the last 11 years, I have had things other than philately on my mind!

petrod

I think I finally solved the mystery. I researched the company to which the envelope was addressed (they are still in existence under another name). I think the envelope probably contained a metal label of some sort which would easily have brought the weight up to 5th. step.

petrod

I know what you are getting at Asmodeus - in fact the Brown/Fisher books do not state from which side of the stamp the position of the watermark is observed. However, since the watermark characteristics referred to are "Imprimatur Features", my guess is that they would be looking from the ...

Search found 73 matches