Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

How do I distinguish between the dies of 'roo stamps? I recently won (to my surprise!) an auction item listed as Dies II-I/I-I BW 12c..... what does this mean?

Does it matter? I bid because I wanted the Qld cds on an unusual multiple... not really into specialisations....

Here is the item:

Answers to further my education appreciated!

Ted J

Hope you did not pay Die 1+2 prices Ted?

The three I can see all look to be Die 1, and one with ink in the area also looks to be Die 1.

_________________
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

Die I = Break in inner frame just above left of the 1st A of AUSTRALIA


Die II = No break

_________________
Always on the lookout for Australian pre decimal First Day Covers.

There is no doubt that all 4 stamps are Die I. In all Die II stamps, the top circle on the numeral '3' is narrower (not a full wide circle).

Also, the ACSC (a must for any Kangaroo collector!) details the plate positions of the Die II stamps, and there are no positions in the sheet where you can have a Die I stamp below or to the left of a Die II stamp.

Thanks Glen, Pom, and Simon...answer for Glen not yet I intend to return the item (3 figure cost) to the auction house (not an ebay seller!), can I forward a copy of your appraisals acknowledging Stampboards?

The auctioneer would be well known to Glen and Simon, and probably listed the item according to a seller's description.

By the way, a Warwick cds is common, but any cds on a multiple is not...
Ted J

Ted .. that kind of thing always creates bad blood and is precisely why I do not offer to issue Certs for 3rd party materials as a service, as it will often cause bad vibes all round.

I do not want to get a possibly annoyed good colleague simply as I did the polite thing and offered a totally free appraisal on something I did not ask to see, or even know was being mailed to me! And indeed would have needed to pay for the registered return off essentially.

You can clearly see the cancel cut the stamp you sent me. Have no idea where you got it, or from whom, or what you paid, or how it was described - and none of that is my business. If it is a 3 figure item you are wise to be careful on grade.

However if that was NOT described and priced lower in accordance with that, it is grounds for return .. you do not need to cite any dealer telling you - your eyes can see it! So can the dealer's you bought it from.

Posting something HERE on this board for other's opinions is an entirely different ball game of course.

_________________
.
Click HERE to see superb, RARE and unusual stamps, at FIXED low nett prices, high rez photos, and NO buyer fees etc!

Thanks Glen...that's why I asked the question, not being into varieties etc (unless a Kingsford Smith block 4 with re-entry from a trusted dealer!) I will deal with the matter with the increased knowledge gained from this board, quietly and courteously...I am not a confrontational personality.

Ultimately, my attitude is that if I've been misled and cannot retrieve the situation, well it takes two to tango.....and I cop it knowing better next time.

Regards to all

Ted J in the dust in WA

Where exactly do you mean Simon?

This below is a 1913 Die 1+2 pair from stock. SG 5ca £300.

The RH stamp appears to be a certain Die 2 to me.

I do not see any difference in the 3s?

Glen

Glen,

I believe that both of the stamps you show are indeed Die I. Because of the positions of all of the Die II stamps in the plate despite the catalogue listings as Die I & II pairs, it is actually not possible to have such a horizontal pair.

All such pairs showing both Dies are indeed Die II & I. Vertical Die I & II pairs are possible as the upper positions of Die II stamps all had Die I stamps above them.

The scans I show are from a recent Prestige Philately auction (the Barry Gribble sale) and show Die I and then Die II monogram singles.


Die I monogram single


Die II monogram single

If you compare the solid circle at the top on the left of the '3' on all Die I stamps it is a wide full circle and is very similar in size and shape to the lower circle on the '3'. On all Die II stamps the upper solid circle is a smaller and narrower circle. It is noticeably different.

Traditionally, everyone just looked at whether the left inner frame was broken to the left of the top of 'THREE', however, often a stamp that appears to be Die II is indeed a Die I stamp just heavily inked, giving a false impression. The size and shape of the top circle on the '3' has proven to be a watertight test.

Also, as noted above, if you do a drawing of all the Die II positions, there are NO Die I stamps to the left of any of them in the pane that they all come from.

Simon Dunkerley

How interesting.

A leading dealer was looking at my images above a few hours ago and agreed they were a nice Die 1+2 pair.

I have never heard of this circle test. He hadn't either and ACSC makes no note on that which is not like them.

I still can't really see it on the scans above, even tho they are pretty sharp. The OUTER circle is what you are speaking of?

I'll go and look at some used singles from stock and see how the circles differ.

We are talking about the two solid circles on the actual numeral '3'. To me the difference between the upper circles on the monogram singles shown above is quite visible.

I think the research that proved all of this was published in the 'BSAP' (British Society of Australian Philately) Bulletin after the 2004 edition of the Kangaroo catalogue was published.

I will be surprised if it is not documented in the next ACSC Kangaroo volume, as the 3d Die II stamps are often misclassified.

What has been known for a long time is the exact positions of all of the Die II units, and that no Die I stamps are to the left of any of them. So any time a pair is offered as Die I & II it is immediately incorrect.

At 3am my eyes are not too good.

The end blobs of the 3 and NOT the outer line is what you are speaking of?

Even they look the same to me on these pix.

Hmm.

I do now see a small difference on the top blobs.

That is consistent to ALL Die 2?

Yes, the 'end blobs' - the solid circles on the upper and lower tips of the '3' - the whole little circles and not the outer curve of the top of the '3'.

On ALL Die II stamps the upper 'blob' is noticeably smaller than the lower one; whereas on all Die I stamps the two are very similar.

It is by far the easiest test for a Die II stamp.

If you look at both of the used stamps above, the 'blobs' are pretty much the same upper and lower on both stamps.

What is also noticeable in your large scan in particular is that on the stamp that first appears to be Die II, where the Die I break is normally visible the inner frame-line and left ends of the shading near it are quite overinked.

What this has done is to fill in the Die I break when it is actually still a Die I stamp.

Here is a no monogram block of six with all stamps being Die II.



This block is from Prestige Philately auction number 121.

On all six stamps the upper circle as described above is smaller than the lower circle.

Interesting Simon.

After 90 years since issue someone has just discovered this blob test.

Amazing!

I was both amazed and fascinated when I first came across it and am sure there is still a lot we do not know.

Often I had seen stamps that appeared to be Die II but remained not happy about.

Now there is an easy test - as long as the '3' is not oblitorated by a heavy postmark!

Thanks Simon, you have just destroyed my Die11/1 pair!

_________________
KGV tragic

Hi!

I just had a look at a 3d roo first wmk and remembered this very interesting thread about differences in the "3" of dieI and dieII stamps. Thanks very much to Simon Dunkerley, that died a few days ago!

Using this test I`m not sure if the right stamp could be a dieII stamps, as unfortunately the ink of the postmark goes over the part, where you normally could see the line break. Ehat do the others think?



Closer picture



Thanks

Perhaps this one is a better comparison, as there is no diturbing postmark ink on the left dieI stamp.



Thanks

Josto, I would call it a Die I. Admittedly, though, I had to go back and forth between Simon's Die II and yours a lot of times before making the call!

This thread really does demonstrate the loss to philately with Simon's passing, doesn't it?

I hadn't seen the thread before and didn't know anything about this test for the Die II 3d. Overinking is a common problem with this stamp and I am sure there are many 'Die IIs' out there, that really are not Die II at all.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

The bit about the upper ball on the '3' of the Die 11's was mentioned aeons ago somewhere in Stampboards, but I cannot remember when, and I tried a search but was unsuccessful.

Attached a strip of three Die 11's. If you copy to something like My Pictures and blow it up then measure the top & bottom balls on the '3' you will see a distinct difference.



Try higher resolution:

Hi!

As I don`t have many mlh roos I didn`t expect to find a dieII, but looking at those few ones I found this mlh stamp to the left! And i was happy to see that it IS a DIEII stamp! You can clearly see the difference in the "3" compared to the stamp on the right which is DieI.



Greetings

Yes Josto, certainly looks like a Die II to me. What watermark is it?

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Hi Peter!

It`s first watermark!

Greetings

Very nice! Very nice indeed!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Clemo


Try http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=2709

Clive

Nice examples, Clive, and thanks for pointing out the site for me. Appreciated.

Clemo

I hope this chart maybe of some help.
There are no Die II stamps on the Right Pane of Plate I or on either Pane of Plate 2

Hi!

What die of a 3d roo could this one be? I`ve made a picture with some others together to compare! there is also a small flaw left of the value tablet, which I also found on another stamp! Perghaps this could help? Hope to hear some opinions from the experts!



several 3d roos (upper right and upper left are definately die II)



comparison with a typical die I



the two stamps I suppose to be same position (see flaw left of value tablet) die??



Greetings

josto

Any idea on the die of the two stamps with the small flaw right of the value tablet? Maybe die II? Using the method of comparing the uper part of the "3" I thought they might be!? Any ideas?

Greetings

Hi Josto



Die I(left stamp), Die II (right stamp)



Die I (left stamp), Die II (right stamp)

Die I has a small break in the inner frame at the left of the top of 'THREE'

Die II does not have this break in the inner frame at the left of 'THREE'

Most Important However, sometimes the roughness of the surface of the paper or the application of the plate on the paper caused the ink NOT to adhere to the paper. This meant that we get stamps that look like Die I but are actually Die II.

I would say your bottom 2 stamps are Die II
Second row from bottom are Die I (note ball on 3 and break in inner frame ) and Die II

Hi Josto,

You have Die II and Die I (note ball on 3 and break in inner frame )

Cheers
Barry

It is also worth noting that the Die I break can appear to be not there, due to overinking. That is why Simon Dunkerley's discovery of the size variation in the top ball of the number 3 is so valuable.

You see so many "Die II" 3d for sale on eBay that aren't. And not as a result of deliberate misidentification either.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

What happened was that when the Die I roller was being used to roll in these 120 stamp images on Plate I it was found that 15 impressions on the plate were faulty, for Die 1 roller had broken down. It must have been used on Plate II first or all those stamps would be Die II as well!!

So when the plate makers had to erase the faulty Die I images and re-roll them in again, this time using a new Die roller, this being Die II.

Plate I has 105 Die I stamps and 15 Die II stamps

Plate II has 120 Die I stamps and no Die II stamps

So. out of 240 stamps printed in one strike of the printing press we have 225 Die I stamps and 15 Die II stamps, a ratio of 15 to 1, hence the rarity of Die II stamps.

Vertical and horizontal Pairs and Blocks are very scarce.

Hi!

Thanks very much Back O`Bourke and PeterS, I think it would be worth checking out very clearly the die of these bottom two stamps, as the left hand one with the Westonia postmark is 1st wmk INVERTED wmk!!! So it would be a very very nice find i think!

Greetings

Hi!

What would be a good way to get absolutely sure if I have a 3d roo 1st wmk inverted? Certification? Where could I get it? Or do the experts think there is no need for a expetise because it looks quite clear?

Thanks

Josto, unless you ae planning to sell it I wouldn't bother. In any event, it is clear what it is.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

good stuff here. thanks all.

_________________
I really should be doing something else...

A question can any one show me a die II without a flat top â‚«
Looking at all the scan above all the die I's have an upward sloped â‚« top and die II flat tops
Or is just my eyes going again.

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

You could be right, I have never noticed that before.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Anybody's thought's on these 3

1


2


3

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

Gutters, all Die I in my book.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Was hoping you would say that
And that just stuffed the â‚« theory up

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

Oh well, it was a nice theory while it lasted.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

and just to throw the cat among the pigeons, if you think you have a Die 2 in Third Watermark, also check to make sure it is not Die 11B. If there is no frame break between ST of Australia also check top right corner of the inner frame.

Ok so we have now busted the â‚« theory with the die I/II
But at the same time the â‚« is still there and some are at an angle and some are not are these plateable.

1 again


2 again


3 again

_________________
I AM ALWAYS IN THE MIDDLE
Post your KGV faults on the stampboard wiki.

Hi!

In an older collection I found this pair of 1st wmk 3d roo stamps. Do you share my opinion, that this could be a dieI/II pair?



left part:



right part:



Thanks

Josto, looks like a die II / die I pair to me.

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

Fascinating thread

I am a 'newish' collector and have not gone into 'details' as yet, but this has inspired me. Thank you to all who have contributed.

And if I've learned well, Josto, I second PeterS on this one DieII/DieI.