Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Hi mcgooley, I am assuming that you will be the one to answer this post.. I have just won this Lot on ebay in Auction and the main reason I bidded on it was for the 1st stamp BN 52 which in the Thread I am using as a reference, page 1 of this Thread, says :- JANEFIELD.....Rated RRRR (BN) and I think the 1st stamp looks like it to me.. I also think in the 2nd row, 2nd stamp, may be 19 which type A2 has a RR rating.. I think the others are unrated..

Come on mcgooley "make my day"..



Thanks again for sharing your time and knowledge..
Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi Bunge.

Sorry, no ceegar. This is a really common mistake to make, but your '52' is actually Launceston, in Tasmania.

If you have a close look, you'll see that it has three side-bars - the Victorian version only has two. It is very frequently found on Victorian stamps as one of its main duties was to take a swipe at any uncancelled stamps as they came through. (If it's any consolation, you did get the time-frame of the stamp right - - no, probably not )

Pete, I really believe - based on what I can see, and the '9' - that what you have is a partial strike of Woodend's first issue of '119'. If the number was '19', you would see more of the very top and bottom bars.

If you purchased this lot based on those two stamps alone, I'm sorry; but IMHO I don't think it's a bad lot, although it's a pity about the top perfs on the 4d Laureate (even though it's been "killed"). I'd be interested in the perfin under the 1977 of Rialto, and I would urge you to never disdain the cut-outs - they will give you some of the clearest strikes.

Not what you wanted to hear from me, I know, but I would encourage you to keep the '52' for reference - believe me, that and a good, clean, first '32' of Coleraine are your best friends. After a while, you do not need to look twice.

Regards.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Hi mcgooley, once again assuming you will answer this post.. I am a bit confused about this.. I have cut this from page 1 :-
5 (B) OVENS, (BO) BENDIGO CREEK (renamed SANDHURST), (BN) BALLARAT (BALLAARAT) .....R type A2. .....R 15th duplex.
Now this says .....R type A2, now how can it be type A2 when this says :-
These first 100 fall into 2 types known as A1 and A2. Both types have ornate numerals, and have been described as the "heavy barred" numerals because of the thickness of the side bars. Type A1 shows three bars at the sides, and is found in nos. 1-9 inclusive and no. 11. Type A2 has only two bars each side, and is characteristic of no. 10 and nos. 12-100 inclusive.

I cut the above from the link you gave me on page 3 last week.. Can you see my confusion, A2 has only 2 side bars and starts from #10 plus #12 through to 100.. But it is #5, so it should be A1, shouldn't it ??

Thanks again Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Pete, welcome to the wild, weird, wacky, world of the BN.

Let's go back to the original strike of '52' in question, cut from your image;



Because the strike is on a Victorian stamp, doesn't necessarily make it a Victorian Barred Numeral. From somewhere north on this thread, where I showed this image of the Tasmanian BN;



As I've already indicated, '52' of Launceston, in Tasmania, was frequently used to cancel mail coming in from over the Strait. Let's put it side-by-side with a copy of a Victorian '52' of Janefield;



Okay, maybe I blew up the Launceston a bit much, but hopefully you can see the differences in the '5' of the '52'.

What I said about the side-bars still stands. Because of the dimensions of the die-plates for the first Victorian Barred Numeral series, whether it was two or three side-bars depended on the number within - hence, for the first nine, and #11, there were three; but only two side-bars thereafter.

I haven't looked into the manufacturers of the Tassie series of BN, so I have no idea about what restrictions they worked under.

Just to confuse you even further, other countries also used barred numeral cancellations, not just the Australian States - and ALL of them used BN.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks mcgooley, but that wasn't my question.. I am not talking about the #52 cancel at all, I have forgotten about that for the time being.. Basically I cannot understand how the #5 Cancel that I posted can have an A2 as a R rating when it is not in the A2 category, it is in the A1 category..Because of its low number, A2 doesn't have the #5 as it starts from #10..
That's my confusion, sorry that you spent time C&P..

Thanks Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Sorry Bunge....I'd added your two earlier posts together, and came up with the wrong number

That A2 that Glen refers to on the first page is actually the third issue of Ballarat's '5'. It kicked in about 1858 - the first two issues of the offices had taken such a hammering that another one was called for. And, not long after that came into use, Ballarat was issued with it's first duplex.

You're right in your basic assumption regarding the A1 and A2.....but, particularly in Ballarat's case, you have to allow for curve-balls. It might help to know that Ballarat was the only office busy enough to warrant this A2 canceller, all the other nine offices behaved themselves.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks again mcgooley, I will have that book by the end of the year, I really do need it !!
Now here we go again, I bidded on this stamp because of its BN even though it's an English stamp.. I thought that if a Victorian stamp can be cancelled in Tassie, then perhaps an English stamp could be cancelled in Victoria..
Here she is :-


938 SIMMONS REEF ..... Rated RR, Yeah or Nay ??

I also have these I am puzzleing over :-


#1 - 896 or 968, the key to this chap is in the middle, is it a 6 or a 9 ??
#2 & 3 - Both 415, Wood's Point, Type 4 ?? (no s/bars)
#4 - 1981 - Pitfield Plains, Rated S, is this the one ??
#5 - 521 or 321, it is a bit damaged and I don't know what the 3 or 5 looks like on this cancel..
#6 - 1650 - STREZLECKIE ..... Rated RR, I know it is faint, but trust me it is 1650, I can see it clear enough with my glasses on or a Magnifying Glass, 100% possitive.. So is it the one ??
#7 - 98 .....R 1st duplex.??
#8 - 556 - LATROBE BRIDGE (renamed LONGFORD) ..... Rated SS. Is this the one ??
#9 - 1630 - Don't know what 14A looks like ??

Thanks mcgooley..
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Pete, put an order in for the book as a present

A couple of posts back I made the comment about the Aussie States not being the only postal services which used barred numerals. Your example on the GB is an English barred numeral - I don't know anything about them, but there are a couple of members here who can help you. Tasmania's BN ended near the end of the '300' run; and Victoria's 938 has no side-bars.

With the first stamp of your batch, it is 968 of Wee-wee-rup. The stamp itself gives the game away because Coliban Junction's 896 closed in 1877 - nearly 10 years before the stamp was issued.

#2 & 3 are examples of Wood's Point duplex numeral; and 1981 is a nice example of Pitfield Plains S-rated BN.

On the bottom row, the first one is the right side of Healesville's 521 duplex. The 321 allocated to Walwa only lasted from 1861-1865.

If you're positive about the 1650, and from what I can see of the scan I tend to agree, you've got yourself a RR-rated strike of Strezleckie, and I believe you have a second strike of Pitfield Plains next to it.

556 has very fine numerals, not like the highly stylized digits which show up here on Warracknabeal's distinctive '355' duplex. (This one was the bane of my existence, when I first started playing with BN.)

On your last, 1630, it looks very like Cobram's first duplex. The original allocation shows a much wider head to the '3', and takes up far more of the stamp - as would Cobram's second duplex, which is also larger.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Bunge the 938 English postmark is for Croydon, in London and the double side bar one that yours is, is the most common. Nevertheless it's a cracking numeral on a fairly good stamp. A plate 9 non hyphen sixpence of 1870

_________________
Donald.
Aus KGV Head Addict !

Firstly Thanks mcgooley, that RR rating has made my day !! Just not clear on 968 ECHUNGA (renamed WEEWEERUP) .....Rated S, is this my stamp ??
And the 415 WOODS POINT .....RR type 4. You say it is the Duplex Numeral, which I don't understand.. The only reference I have is in this Thread, which says type 4, and the explanation of type 4 which I have read, simply says, no side bars.. So obviously it is not type 4 or you would have said, but it has no side bars, see my confusion..
And I don't understand what you mean about 556, as that is what the cancel looks like to me, it is definately not 355, I would accept 356, if the 1st # was a 3 and not a 5, but the last # is a definate 6..
Everything else I am clear about..


Also thanks Donald for you imput on the English stamp.. I was aware that there were Barred Numerals used in England but I could find no reference to them when I did my search.. I thought the cancel would be easily recognised as a Victorian Cancel if it was in fact the case.. With your info, I can now stow that stamp with a note as to what it is, (when it arrives) .. It is a lovely old stamp with a crystal clear cancel even if it is common..

Thanks all for your time and knowledge, it's priceless..
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Pete, your 968 is the S-rated Wee-wee-rup (the office only used the name Echunga for a couple of years).

The Wood's Point duplex didn't have side-bars either. If you have another look at your examples, you will see, on both of them, at the left of the '4' is the side of the date-stamp half of the duplex. The characteristics of the type 4, of the first issue, are completely different - in that the down-strokes are much thicker than the cross strokes on the numerals.

This is what Longford's 556 looks like:



I hold by my original statement that what you have is Warracknabeal's duplex.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks mcgooley, that last numeral hasn't left the ink where it should be, that is how it looks like a 6 to me, but after a lot of study I can see your 5 in its place.. But without the knowledge you have about this I would have bet quids on it that it was a 6 Okies I can add that knowledge to my stack of notes, which is increasing daily..

I will add this for you to have a look at as you said "I'd be interested in the perfin under the 1977 of Rialto"..It has brown paper still on the back, so it is hard to see so I drew sorta what the perfin looks like.. Is there any reason why I should keep the paper on the back of any of these old stamps ?? I have noticed many Sellers leave it on, I soak it off the minor value stamps, but if I got a say $25.00 stamp with paper would I soak it off, or would it devalue the stamp ?? With these perfins I have at a guess at least 25 of them now, probably more.. Most of them are more symbols than letters.. I will post the backside of 3 for you to look at and if you want to look at more and discuss them I will open another Thread..




Thanks again mcgooley
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi again mcgooley, I am still piecing my new found fascination together and I thought I would post these for your advice..
Firstly, I have now got 4 different types of the BN 2 and the last stamp has prompted me to ask which duplexes all these different strikes are.. If I'm not mistaken the last stamp (Bot, right) is from 1878, so that strike may be one which has a rating..



Secondly I have this #5 strike on an 1860 stamp, and am wondering is (BN) BALLARAT (BALLAARAT) .....R type A2. As to my limited knowledge, it foots the bill !!



Thanks again, I will go to bed shortly, and dream of sorting stamps again as I have been doing for a couple of weeks now..
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi Pete. I only have a passing interest in private perfins - although I know someone who is quite heavily into them. From your scan, the Rialto has AWE - one I haven't seen before (not that that means much ) - but I have come across some of the others.

Here's a site which might be of some use to you;

http://www.perfins.com.au/

Personally, I would give the Rialto a bath. The backing paper adds nothing to its value, and a bath will freshen it up. Unless the strike is on the paper as well as the stamp, my general practice is to give all my toys a wash.....after anything up to 140 years playing in the dirt, they do become a bit grubby

Firstly, your #5 of Ballarat. Your example is actually from Ballarat's first numeral duplex which was used for a couple of years in the early 1860s. The '5' in Ballarat's A2 canceller looks more like the '5' in the 18th numeral duplex, rather small, and a bit lost inside the bars.

Geelong. On the top row, you have the 12th duplex numeral on the 1d pink. It's difference from the 11th is that the '2' is slightly finer. Next to that is from the 10th duplex, distinguishable because you can see some of the unframed datestamp.

On the bottom row, the stamp on the right is actually from the 4th duplex. There are a couple of features that give it away. The most obvious is the framed datestamp - the sixth is unframed; but the style of the '2' is different. On the 6th duplex, the '2' is not quite so wide and the serif on the tail has more of a slant. As you can see from your example, the tail is almost vertical.

But, the most interesting is the bottom left stamp. This isn't '2' at all. The length of tail on the '2' leads me to believe it is 821 of Trunk Lead (what you believe to be a side-bar is actually a '1').

Pete, do you have measuring calipers? If not, a good ruler might do. The measurement of the '2' and the '1' should be about 10mm tall.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks Mcgooley, I use my Perf Gauge and a magnifying glass for measureing.. The measurement on the 1 is 11.5..

Thanks for that Perfin site, also you say you know someone who is heavily into Perfins, perhaps you could contact him/her at a later date and I will post them for him/her to have a look at.. Most of them are on 1d reds, some are on 1d pinks, and apart from the OS (which I didn't include in my count) they are all private companies I reckon, I don't recall any VGs in them.. And they all have a very heavy Melbourne cancel on them also..

Am soaking the Rialto right now, I have hundreds to soak actually, its a shame with some of them as there is a lot of the OG showing on some, but they are 50 cent stamps and they tend to sit too proud in the sleeves which makes the other stamps around them prone to moving around..

Thanks again Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

I'm confident enough now to say you have a 821 of Trunk Lead - rated 'R'.

And before anyone asks; the height of the numerals puts it in the 700-900 range.

721 was allocated to Foxhow, but the office closed before the number was cut; and 921 of Hill Plain finished in 1894 when the office closed, 6 years before the stamp was issued.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Once again thank you mcgooley, I have only been sorting a few tonight as today is that dreaded day that only comes once a year, so i've been a bit busy..

This partial strike has me thinking that there is a possibility that it is 217 STRATHLODDON .....RRRRR type 2A two side bars. .....RR type 2A.
I know I am always shooting for the stars but with the limited resorces available to me, by not being able to compare strikes etc, I think this one a good possible because I can see an ON.. It could be is 210, Gordons, or even 215, Maidstone, they are the only others with an ON in them at the end..
Also the above ratings are a bit confusing too, is there two different type 2As ?? I thought 2A had 2 side bars full stop !!

What do you think mcgooley ?




Cheers Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Sorry Pete, this one is almost certainly 212 of Myrniong (originally, Pentland Hills), which is unrated.

The original allocation of the 2A issues runs from 208 to 217. Of those ten offices, three only ever had the one canceller (210, 211, 215), - the others, including Strathloddon, all had two issues of their numeral; Berwick (213), Birregurra (214), and Myrtleford (216), were each supplied with a duplex.

Strathloddon's second canceller shows the same characteristics as the BN in the early '600' range from mid-1867 - taller numerals and no side-bars.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks mcgooley, I didn't spot that one.. I knew it would be an unrated stamp deep down, but at least now I can give it a home..

Have got plenty of partial strikes but I will wait until I get the book so as I can try some detective work as well..

Thanks again
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi Mcgooley, I have just come across this info on page 2 of this Thread :- RRR rating, M96 (Type 10A).
Now because I have this stamp I don't expect it to be the one with a RRR rating, but I don't have a clue what type 10A looks like, so I thought I'd best ask..



Thanks for your time
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi Pete, your image is of YARRAGON's duplex.

In the original issue, the M96 is all on the same line, with the 'M' roughly half to two-thirds the height of the numbers. (This is true of all the 10A BN.)

That first canceller was superseded when the first "closer settlement" scheme was instigated in the mid- to late- 1880s, and the local population jumped from several families and the local railway staff, to dozens of small farm holdings - hence the need for the duplex.

Keep an eye on the 'wiki', I'll be posting several batches in the next week or so.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks mcgooley, at least I know what to look for from now on..
What do you make of this BN, I originally thought it was just a 3 with 3 side bars,(type A1) but now I am not so sure, it could be a 3 digit # and the 3 may be an 8 !!

And it is an 1870 stamp and not what she says it is !!




Thanks again for sharing you knowledge..
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi Pete. Yes, I saw that one too, and was tempted to throw my hat in the ring.....but I saw something else that took my fancy. It's (an upside-down) 184 of Skipton, and a reasonably early usage (Skipton opened in 1858); you're right about the stamp.

Skipton's unrated, and this was the only issue for the Post Office.

Hope this helps.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Hello everyone, here is a scan of my cancels. A couple are a bit confusing for me can you help?

266, 55, 96 or 69? maybe a 34 or 394
214, 165, 465, 206
70, 193, 57, 97


Are there any normal state cancellations that don't have numbers as these that have a rariety rating?

Thanks for any help in advance.
Micky

Micky, the best I can offer you is that you have a '394' of Mount Morgan (I think )

I'm not really sure I understand your question

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

I meant the normal cancellations that just have the place name in a circle or without circle and date and time.
And thanks for the Mount Morgan one that was a bit tricky to read.

Micky

The new Mannings book on Queensland c.d.s. that Glen is flogging here

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=27777

will be the best way to go.

Not my area of interest, but apparently Bernie has put his heart and soul into this for the Queensland postmark scene.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks mcgooley, I didn't think to rotate it when I was looking at it in my pictures.. I bought it anyway as I don't have the stamp, plus it was 50% off so that brought it down to the CV of the stamp near enough..

I spotted this one this morning and bidded on it, I actually won it for about $1.20 plus postage, which they haven't got back to me on yet..

What do you think about this, as I know some BNs are known on KGV and Roos but this is a 1934 stamp.. Also I don't expect this to be RRR but it is a 7 (within bars)..
7 (B) MAIDEN'S PUNT, (BO) THE GLENELG?, (BN) CRESWICK'S CREEK (CRESWICK) .....RRR Duplex 7 within bars. .....R non duplex 2 side bars.




Thanks again, and any info about the strike would be handy and the Duplex as I will add a note when I stow her away..
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Dear old Creswick. This is a great example of late usage - (November?) 1934 - for the fifth and last duplex, issued about 1900. Hugh Freeman records 6th of March 1935 as the last known usage, but I have been unable to pinpoint exactly when Creswick was forced to hand in it's barred numeral cancellers.

I do know of a few post offices still had theirs into the 1980s, and recently I was shown an album which contained copies of archival strikes from cancellers sent back to Melbourne for destruction - including a small number of BN - during the mid-1970s.

And the owner doesn't even collect postmarks

As far as I'm concerned, cancels like these are worth every penny. They may be as common as muck, but I guarantee that if anyone had one of these very late examples of usage on cover, confirmed nutters like myself would start WW3 to get their hands on it.

Pete, well done - most people wouldn't give it a second glance - and I didn't even see it

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

This may be worth a post here. I've just emailed a scan of it it Bernie Manning to see if he has any info. on it. It's outside the current range of seen Queensland numerals AFAIK:

9 bar numeral no. 861:

_________________
Tony

Thanks mcgooley, I really thought I would have a fight on my hands to win that stamp, but fortunately for me there were no "BN nuts" surfing ebay in the late evening .. All up, with postage that stamp cost me $2.17 AUD.. I waited until 20 secs to go and attempted to up my bid, but my PC can be a bit slow sometimes and I missed out on the increase and thought someone for sure would have been waiting to do the same thing and I would have lost the stamp.. But when I went back and looked in Won, there she was.. So the Stamp Goddess was looking out for me last night..

In page 1 of this Thread says 371 is unrated, also at the top of the Thread Glen gives another Thread to go into and even that one gives 371 as unrated.. I generally use the link to go to the other Thread as some BNs which are unrated in page 1 actually do have a rating if you look in the other Thread.. I have bought quite a few stamps from this Seller and I spotted 2 Lots which he gave ratings to but were different to the info I have.. So I emailed him, I was right with the first one but the 371 he says has a RR rating..
Here is what he says :-
G'day Peter

Thanks for your emails I have just checked them out. You are correct re 318 and I will be correcting description of it
371 Chinamen's Flat is Rated RR see page 177 20.11.1861-8.11.1895
Thanks again for your interest

So does it have a RR rating or not ? He is quoting from the Freeman & White book, of which I don't have, so I cannot look up page 177..

Here is the stamp in question :-



Thanks again mcgooley
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Pete, your seller is correct about the rating, and duration of the post office, for Chinaman's Flat, per Hugh's book. And, knowing the gentleman concerned, it is rare for him to mis-describe his items.

When lists of ratings are written up - as has been done on this board - it is very easy to overlook individual items.....there's so many of them. Even on my BN wiki, where I'm only concentrating on the first issues, I can only hope I've checked the data properly before I hit the submit button; and I've chosen to ignore the minor ratings.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks again mcgooley, yes he is a fairly spot on Seller as I have bought several Lots from him..

Another question, what is type 11A is it say MC at the top, then Bar and the numeral underneath, a bit like my M96 but BIG numerals not little ones.. If it is I've seen something very interesting !!!

Thanks again Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Pete, here are a few images of what to look for with the roman numeral series; 1000-1400 in the first issues



The above, M88 (1088 of Clear Lake), gives you an indication of the height of the 'M' against the numbers in the 1000 series.

Below is a nice clean example of the 1100 series with MC10 of Tyrendarra;



Here we have examples of 12A and 12B. 12A is 1200, 1201, 1202, and 1203 - where the second 'C' is on the bottom line - before the engraver realized that wasn't gonna work, and stuck the two 'C's up on top. 12B is represented by MCC12 of Fenton's Creek;



Lastly, examples of the 1300, and 1400 series. You can see the difference in spacing between the "C's in the two series, with MCCC28 of Toombon, and MCCCC85 of Mount Hoogly;

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks mcgooley, but not having the book the 11A, 14A, 16A etc can be a bit confusing.. You think you have a rated stamp but because of certain technicalities you have an unrated stamp because the numeral isn't the right one, it either too tall, too small, doesn't have the right slope etc.. You know what I mean...

I bought this Lot last night, is the stamp, 3rd row down, 4th stamp in, classified as 11A, or through the above technicalities it is classified as something else..



Thanks once again
Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Pete, you are now the proud dad of a bouncing 11A. There was only really the one run in the original 1100 series, and on the second row, third in, your example of Trafalgar's MC15 shows up nice and clear.

The MC24 on the third row is actually from St. Kilda R.S 2nd duplex. The thickness of the letters and numbers give it away, as does the tail on the '2'.
St. Kilda wasn't the only office put on earth to confuse and frustrate us - there are a number of duplexes which use the roman numerals. Sneaky things, but they can teach you what to look out for

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Hi all ,

Fantastic stuff here as of late good to see .

Tony as for your Qld 861, I might hazard a "Guess" Could it be Coolangatta Railway Station ???? but I am unsure of the canceller types used , just starting to look into that side of things.

Regards

C . P .

_________________
Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

Thank You mcgooley, I don't actually own them as I only said that as to throw people off who use this Thread as I do for reference.. He wants $50.00 for that Lot and I won't buy it now because I have all those stamps anyway and the MC24 is not rated.. The 11A MC24 has a RRRR rating and the only stamp of value is the 2004 with a SS rating but not worth all that money.. The rest of the stamps are far too common and easy to get for a 1/10th of the price he is asking..

Thanks again I will continue my endless search for those elusive RRR plus rated stamps which have value beyond the Sellers Ken..

Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Tony,

sorry, it is not '861' but '198' of Aramac, rated C. I've made the same mistake myself several times.

Ron

Hello everyone, here are some more stamps I recently purchased.

82


46 I think


5


4


196 I am sure but could be 961


1 best looking number I have.


Let me know what you think and thank you for your time
Micky

PS I will add another picture of what I posted in another section, below.

The lot I purchased last night from USA, might of paid too much or could be a gold mine, I will know in a week or two when/if delivered.







Many Victoria stamps and some QLD and NSW. I am hoping to find some numeral cancels among them, as there is supposed to be 1000 stamps

Micky

Good on you Mickey, I tried to bid on that Lot for days but I was shut out because he only shipped to USA.. I even tried to email him to ask him to change his mailing to Worldwide.. But I couldn't even do that !!!

I notice that you are in Aussie, how were you able to bid on it when I was shut out ???

Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Bunge he had it up as Buy now $78.93Au, Posts to: N. and S. America, Europe, Asia, Australia . Oh maybe he had it listed incorrect and relisted it at the time I seen it. Sorry it was a Right place right time thing, anyway he has not marked as sent yet, I could be taken for a ride, that has happen twice already on Ebay for me. Anyway hope all goes well I like to get lucky once in my life, well twice I found my wife

Micky crossing fingers..

Thanks Micky, I still have the listing at the back of my saved list.. Of course it it now ended, but my page says, Ships to USA !!

Have a look :-
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... K:MEWAX:IT

Cheers Mate, I bet you will find some decent BNs in that Lot..

Bunge

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi Bunge, looks like he did list it again, totally different number.

Here is the link.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... K:MEWNX:IT

I will show what I find you might be interested in a swap or something.

Micky

Micky, your '82' is from Wangaratta's 1st (of two) duplex, in use from about 1872. You can sometimes find this in blue during the mid 1880s.

Hamilton's (BN 46) third duplex, issued in the mid 1880s, is starting to look tired in the second scan.

Ballarat's '5' is probably from the 11th duplex rather than the 12th. They both came in at the same time, but the 12th has more of a lean backwards to the top of the '5' than I'm seeing in the image. The best way to check is to measure the width of the box - the 12th duplex is 1mm wider at 19mm.

Your '4' is Sandhurst (Bendigo) and is type A1a, the second canceller issued which was used all the way up to the mid 1890s.

I'm almost positive your fifth image is 961 from Drouin's duplex. To my mind you should be seeing some of the datestamp if it was Branxholme's 196 duplex.

Your Melbourne's '1' is a magnificent example of the A1a issue --- and the stamps aren't bad either

Regarding the lot from the U.S.A.; whether there's any BN (and I can see a 4th duplex numeral of Warrnambool's amongst them) shouldn't really matter as much as having some fun with your new toys From what I can see, there's some nice stamps amongst them; and learning about the stamps themselves gives you a better idea of the BN when you come across them.

Believe it or not, the plain old 1d Pinks can teach you a lot if you let them; and don't even get me started on the 2d Mauves - ALL of them. The thrill of the chase for BN is one thing but the stamps that carry them should never be overlooked.

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

mcgooley I do check my state stamps over and over again, I find a lot of flaws with the borders. I will let you know when I receive my early Xmas gift from USA, there hass to be a few BN hiding. I am happy with my NO.1 and the stamp it's printed on too.

Thanks again mcgooley

I see you have been busy mcgooley, I am totally hooked and fascinated in BNs.. I wish I had known about all this years ago when there were not so many avid collectors..

I have 2 stamps for you, I haven't seen this BN 10 style before and the 173 DAYLESFORD .....R type 1B.
I think this is type 1B, because of the 2 side bars..





Thanks Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them

Hi Pete, the '10' is the numeral from Warnambool's fourth duplex; highly distinctive and well known in blue. It was in use for about 10 years from the late 1880s.

You're spot on with Daylesford's first 1B issue, and a very nice example it is too

And, I know how you feel about the competition these days

_________________
FORESTS OLD, PASTURES NEW
(An expert is one who knows more and more, about less and less)

Thanks again mcgooley, that makes 4 I have with an R rating now..

With the Roman Numerals how did they write 1100, or say 1200 ? Did they just put for 1100, MC with nothing underneath or did they put a 0 under the MC ?? I have one which is rather faint, has been struck twice on the stamp, but I can see no numeral under the MC..
1100 KOROOP .....RRR type 16-11. .....R type 11.
Unsure about the types given here, type 11 ?? Again confusing as what looks like an 11A may not be as you explained a few posts back..

Thanks Pete

_________________
It's better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them