Flaws on Aust Kangaroo stamps? Help from the experts please!

[Pampstamp]

Not sure Frank!!

To be honest I didn't even notice it until pointed out I was to focused on the inverted wmk!

The example you are referring to is for the 2/Maroon. Mine is the 2/ Brown!!
Not sure if its not as prominent or earlier state or inked in - but weird to have that exact flaw
right in that spot

Any thoughts on the red brown OS ( maybe aniline Inv)?

[langtounlad]

Pampstamp

Sorry I cannot help with the anilines as they are beyond my expertise. All I can say about your stamp is that there is a faint red bloom on the rear of the stamp but not strong enough to indicate one way or the other.

Not sure if there are any on the Board with the expertise.

I did comment on this thread years ago that the best test for aniline is to put a match to it and if it burns with an oily black smoke you were the owner of an aniline. I do not recommend this test.

Regards
Frank

[Dani]

Is there a colour flaw off the NSW coast here similiar to the half penny or is it just an inking flaw?
It appears to be at a similar horizontal level to the half penny, but slightly further out.
There is also some weakness on the kangaroo's tail, almost like a half bite out of the tail.

Regards.

[Global Admin]

I did comment on this thread years ago that the best test for aniline is to put a match to it and if it burns with an oily black smoke you were the owner of an aniline. I do not recommend this test.

Regards
Frank

Very handy tip .... Just did 15 stamps, and 4 were aniline.

[david3461]

Happy new year and a prosperous 2023 to all board members

Been going through some 1d red kangaroos and found this one this morning..... should I be getting excited??


It appears prima facie to be a Die1/Die2 pair with the Die2 plated as DR55 as per Adams, Bell and Pope,

A bit of research suggests that this combination is not common and therefore I am seeking confirmation or not of my observations


Thank you David

[Pampstamp]

Happy new year and a prosperous 2023 to all board members

Been going through some 1d red kangaroos and found this one this morning..... should I be getting excited??


It appears prima facie to be a Die1/Die2 pair with the Die2 plated as DR55 as per Adams, Bell and Pope,

A bit of research suggests that this combination is not common and therefore I am seeking confirmation or not of my observations

Nope NO cigar!!

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=7235099#p7235099

[Fella]

Happy new year everyone!

Definitely not a prize, Just a curiosity for me.

[Kainnikanada]

Fella,

Place your 2/- stamp in front of a strong light source and observe the area in question. If it is lighter than the surrounding paper it is probably a scuff that has removed a portion of the paper's surface. To me, the area appears slightly whiter than the its surrouondings i.e. suggestive of a rub but not conclusive. Only you can confirm.

I could not find a catalogue listing for your presumed flaw.

In any future posts with questions I suggest including a scan of the reverse to enable us to check coincidence of flaw with watermark feature and identify/confirm watermark type.

[Pampstamp]

Fella

That a rough example and for sure its a scuff mark

But hey, to be sure you can do Franks Aniline test above
https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=9590381#p9590381

[Global Admin]

A VERY blind nun can see the 2/- has a surface thin -- the curly piece of paper that was abraded in transit etc can clearly be seen STILL in situ on the scan under the thin as can readily be seen.

Holding it to a bright light will of course have confirmed that in one second. As of course would a magnifier have done. Neither very high tech pieces of kit.

[PhilipAdams]

Happy new year and a prosperous 2023 to all board members

Been going through some 1d red kangaroos and found this one this morning..... should I be getting excited??


It appears prima facie to be a Die1/Die2 pair with the Die2 plated as DR55 as per Adams, Bell and Pope,

A bit of research suggests that this combination is not common and therefore I am seeking confirmation or not of my observations


Thank you David

David,

In answer to your questions, Yes you should be excited.

On matters like this, nothing is certain in the absence of other examples but the case is as compelling as can be at this stage.

The left hand stamp is Die I. The right hand stamp does not appear to have the classic Die I break, though the area is partly obscured by the postmark.

However, it does have the DR55 flaw marker. The marker is only recognised in Adams, Bell and Pope; nothing in Sluman or in Bell's monograph. I don't have an example, but I have images thanks to David Adams (see the page below).

From a plate D printing, DR55 would very often show marginal watermark lines. I can see no such lines on your images. Another piece of supporting evidence.

From what I can see, you have a pair showing a Die II stamp substituted into a Die I-plate printing.

======================
.

.
Philip (with jealousy!)

[david3461]

Thanks Philip......really appreciate your time and comments

It seems I currently have two other copies of DR55 to compare to:

There is some variation to the flaw as noted in the literature and one of these other two copies does have a full corner watermark and the other nothing.

There may be another marker - albeit not listed. The shade lines between Victoria and Tasmania are thickened in all copies.


I am guessing the next step would be to try and get it certificated. RPSV is probably the way to go as they did the first one in 2013. Any advice on moving forward with that ??

[PhilipAdams]

David,

I'm guessing that RPSV would be as good as anything.

However, before sending it there it might be good to get the opinion of David Adams. With your permissions I'll send him a copy of the scan and report back with his opinion.

Philip

[david3461]

Thanks Philip....that sounds like a great idea, that's if he doesn't mind having a look.

I would rather not waste the time of the Committee, if this turns out to be not as it looks.


Also, if the scans are not up to speed, let me know and I will provide whatever is necessary.

Cheers David

[Kainnikanada]

David,

The absence of watermark lines on the one example is somewhat concerning notwithstanding the seemingly correct flaw identification. Interesting examples and pair.

[PhilipAdams]

David,

I've now heard back from David Adams and another 1d expert. Both say the same thing - there is nothing that they can see which would rule out the pair being I/II.

I''ll email their detailed responses. You might want to correspond directly with them on this matter.

Philip

[david3461]

Hi Philip
Thank you...
I really appreciate you contacting these experts on my behalf and I will respond to them accordingly.
Hopefully this find will be beneficial to all.

Cheers
David

[Borisdog]

Am I missing something with the Die1/2 pair discussion?

Was DR55 used as a sub-cliche somewhere?

That's the only way a left column stamp can have a stamp on its' left presumably.

[langtounlad]

Am I missing something with the Die1/2 pair discussion?

Was DR55 used as a sub-cliche somewhere?

That's the only way a left column stamp can have a stamp on its' left presumably.

Yes!

Yes! and

Yes!

Regards
Frank

[PhilipAdams]

I'm confused by Boris' remark and Frank's response.

David's pair of 1d reds shows a die 1 stamp on the left side and potentially a die 2 stamp on the right side.

The conjecture is that the pair has been printed from a base of die 1 clichés (probably formed from plate B or plate C) with one cliché (presumably damaged) replaced by another. The replacement cliché is thought to be cut from position R55 of the die 2 plate D.

There is no evidence to guide us on the position of the supposed die 2 unit on the base from which the pair was printed, other than it cannot be in the first column. Also, given the absence of horizontal marginal watermark lines it is unlikely to be from the top or bottom rows.

Philip

[Kainnikanada]

Philip,

The watermark on the pair is displaced downwards. The lowest row can not be eliminated. How many Die1/2 horizontal pairs were there in the plate?

I am unfamiliar with plating the 1d Roo.

[jojo]

Hi folks.
This is a prominent white flaw off NSW coast, on a 2/ brown, 3rd watermark roo.
No obvious scuffing, or thinning.
Haven't seen one before. Any comments, please?

Jojo's 2/ brown roo, NSW flaw

close up, Joj'os 2/ brown NSW flaw

reverse, Joj'os 2/ brown NSW flaw

[langtounlad]

Hi folks.
This is a prominent white flaw off NSW coast, on a 2/ brown, 3rd watermark roo.
No obvious scuffing, or thinning.
Haven't seen one before. Any comments, please?

Not a value I have pursued so I am not confident about commenting. But for what it is worth, my first thought was a possible connection to ACSC 37(1)j 1L56. But there does not appear to be a lower marginal watermark line and with the position of the crown it should be showing. jojo can you confirm there is no marginal waterline present.

In the absence of the marginal line I can only suggest a piece of debris stuck to the paper before printing and subsequent to printing it has fallen off or been washed off by a conscientious collector.

Regards
Frank

[jojo]

No, I can't see a lower marginal watermark line.
Thanks for your comments.

[jojo]

Hi folks.
This is a prominent white flaw off NSW coast, on a 2/ brown, 3rd watermark roo.
No obvious scuffing, or thinning.
Haven't seen one before. Any comments, please?

Just giving this a bump.
Any 2/ roo experts out there ?

[langtounlad]

I have just recently received an Ebay purchase which might be of interest to the collectors of Roo flaws.

I have been collecting and studying the substituted cliches of the 9d Roo for about as long as I have been a member here. It has not been easy but if patience is a virtue I have joined the virtuous. My Ebay purchase included a Die 2b/substituted cliche pair in 3rd watermark. These pairs are extremely rare used - I have never seen one before becoming the custodian of this pair.

They are 274R1/274R7B the latter being the substituted cliche.

ACSC does not provide a used value for this pair presumably because its pricing panel has never seen such a pair sold.

Because it is a parcel cancel it is not pretty but as an extremely rare example who cares!

By the way, the bit in ACSC that says substituted cliches in 3rd watermark cannot be identified as singles is bullshit in all but one cliche - that is 4R49 (and I am still working on that).

Regards

Frank

[Tangles2]

Greetings All

Recently I spotted this 3rd Wmk 10/- denomination Kangaroo and Map stamp on eBay and noticed a pink blotch above the small of the back of the roo.

Closely examining an enlargement of the image as attached showed the faint but clear coastal trace of the duty plate ink from Spencers Gulf, around the coast and Cape york to Arnhem land and the impression of the L-frame and shading above the frame itself as the picture shows.

I was pretty chuffed to spot this and in my mind, it represents a classic kiss-print being displaced up 9.6mm and right 2.1mm from the default location, and I was more than happy to win the bidding at $89 as I think good examples of kiss prints in any high denomination roo are uncommon.

Looking at BW's ACSC it lists only 48c as doubling and that only 2 perf. OS examples are listed. My questions are does anyone know of other kiss-print examples that are not OS perfed or is it worth raising this to be included in the next BW edition?

Secondly, I'd be interested in any other comments or examples of this or other high denomination roos that may be relevant, or other observations you might want to make about the kiss-print or if you disagree with my representation of this example as one.

Look forward to any responses with interest.

Regards Tangles

[Global Admin]

Seems to be a stamp with a very heavy vertical sharp surface abrasion, top to base, like a sharp nail or blade etc, (which KILLS any resale value) and some small specks of surplus ink here and there.

Looking at it carefully, it MAY be a feint double impression to top right. Well away from main impression - however if that were to be the case there should be no colour dot above left A. MAYBE a vertical speck of outer LH frame?

I've added pars to your vast gob of text, and added attachment inline, and added to correct thread.

Admin

THIS is a real Roo Double Print.

[Tangles2]

Well if it's not a kiss print what do you call it then? The scan line you refer to is from the sticky tape on the clear plastic wrapping that was still on it when I received it in the mail and did the first scan.

If you want to I can resend a new image that otherwise shows the ink as detailed with the faint coastal trace detailed. My understanding of the definition of a kiss print is taken from philatelic terms dictionary:

Kiss prints occur when the stamp paper accidentally slaps back onto the inked printing plate, possibly picking up residual ink, or badly smearing the ink just printed. Or, when the next sheet printed lands on top of the lower sheet, smearing to still damp ink..

If this doesn't represent a kiss print in this case what do you call it? The residue on this shows I think the coastal and shading traces as detailed. I didn't think it met the definition of doubling as detailed.

You are very definite that there is no example of a kiss print of this stamp so can you clarify for me what your definition of a kiss print is and why you are confident in saying no such thing exists, or why this does not meet such a definition?

I'm keen to understand and if your definition of kiss-print differs from those I've sourced before Tks T.

[Global Admin]

The scan line you refer to is from the sticky tape on the clear plastic wrapping that was still on it when I received it in the mail and did the first scan.

OMG. I read it, but do not believe it.

[Tangles2]

Hey mate, it's very easy to be a bit of a disparaging purist but I was only keen on getting an enlargement to view in greater detail the ink traces. If needed I had the original and this was just the first scan to study. Sorry if my eagerness to do this has offended you. T

[Tangles2]

By the way, thanks for the example of the 5/- doubling, its a real gem!