Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I picked out a small bundle of kiloware that I accquired in a mixed box last month. There were about 10 copies of this stamp and lo and behold I found not one but two copies of the missing colour in the floor tiles.
The error occurs in the left and right stamps.
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thanks for calling attention to this error. It is not listed in SG Concise and I had not previously known of it. In checking my accumulation, of a total of 31 used copies, 3 are the variety with the "grey" floor tiles, vs the normal "brown" tiles.
Herewith images showing the two different items side by side.
JTH
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:21:52pm
I had never heard of this variety either.
I read this thread earlier today, and just now was working on preparing our Buckacover upload for Thursday, and, lo and behold, there is the 1973 Christmas FDC. Thought I'd have a closer look. Was quite surprised to see that it's the "grey tiles" variety (I'm not going to call it an error -- it seems too common for that).
Roy
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
There's another minor variety in the set that was listed in the old SG Commonwealth Varieties catalogue on SG 944, the second of the stamps on the strip shown on Roy's FDC.
This is a strong retouch on the bottom of the "3" which appears as a marked thickening.
This was constant on one position on one of the cylinder panes.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Interesting variation.
I'd like to see the other minor variety you mention as well - the retouched 3.
Anyone have a copy?
Login to Like
this post
The retouched 3 is visible in the photos posted by Roy, as Nigel pointed out. The 2nd stamp from the left in Roy's 1st photo, then the enlarged area of the retouched 3 at the far left of the 2nd photo. A close look at the 3 shows a just discernable thickening of the it's bottom half.
Login to Like
this post
I'm not sure if the stamp on the FDC shows this retouch or not.
Here's a scan from the SG catalogue:
and a smaller scan at 150 dpi of just the figure "3".
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Think this illustrates the thick/thin 3p value.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
09:55:20pm
I'm not really a "varieties guy", but I thought the essence of the SG varieties guide listing for this stamp was the "jog" in the outline of the "3", as I attempted to highlight in the edited version of the previous picture seen below. (Please forgive my shakey mouse work. It's the best I could accomplish).
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Roy
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Roy, it looked that way to me, which is why I wrote that I think it may illustrate the flaw/error. Could not find any other examples where there was a marked difference.
There is a visually obvious difference in the thickness of the 3, but maybe that was just overinking.
Regarding the 3½p sadly I have never found any with the missing colours.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"I'm not really a "varieties guy", but I thought the essence of the SG varieties guide listing for this stamp was the "jog" in the outline of the "3", as I attempted to highlight in the edited version of the previous picture seen below."
I agree Roy.
I'm not an expert on GB cylinder layouts but I believe the retouch position information (Cyl 1B dot, R 8/7) means that:
- The retouch is on the 7th stamp from the left on the 8th row - this is the bottom row in this case.
- The affected pane is the right-hand ("dot") pane (counter sheet) of the complete sheet. Each complete sheet was guillotined into two for use in post office counter books. The example below is a "no dot" left-hand pane.
- The cylinder number, presumably the black one, affected by this is "1B." as printed in the sheet margin next to the traffic light colours in the bottom left margin of the pane. The "dot" in the name refers to the full stop (= period) printed after the cylinder number.
Here's an example taken from the internet showing a left-hand pane printed with the 2A no dot black cylinder:
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Have gone through my duplicates and can only come up with this slight flattening of the curve on the right hand stamp, as opposed to the rounded curve of the left stamp. Not really as pronounced as in catalogue illustration.
Login to Like
this post
I assume there are minor variations across the sheets/cylinders and only the quoted retouch was identified as worth listing.
It would be interesting to know whether this or any other retouches on this Christmas issue are listed in the GB Specialised Volume 5 catalogue.
Login to Like
this post
Had A look at what I might have. No retouch. Did however notice these nice shift in colors.
....
....
Login to Like
this post
03:04:04pm
Auctions - Approvals
Since these stamps were issued I must have seen thousands while going through Kiloware, in collections etc. I have always been on the lookout for this "common" error.
I picked out a small bundle of kiloware that I accquired in a mixed box last month. There were about 10 copies of this stamp and lo and behold I found not one but two copies of the missing colour in the floor tiles.
The error occurs in the left and right stamps.
9 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Christmas 1973 Error
Thanks for calling attention to this error. It is not listed in SG Concise and I had not previously known of it. In checking my accumulation, of a total of 31 used copies, 3 are the variety with the "grey" floor tiles, vs the normal "brown" tiles.
Herewith images showing the two different items side by side.
JTH
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
20 Aug 2023
09:21:52pm
re: Christmas 1973 Error
I had never heard of this variety either.
I read this thread earlier today, and just now was working on preparing our Buckacover upload for Thursday, and, lo and behold, there is the 1973 Christmas FDC. Thought I'd have a closer look. Was quite surprised to see that it's the "grey tiles" variety (I'm not going to call it an error -- it seems too common for that).
Roy
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Christmas 1973 Error
There's another minor variety in the set that was listed in the old SG Commonwealth Varieties catalogue on SG 944, the second of the stamps on the strip shown on Roy's FDC.
This is a strong retouch on the bottom of the "3" which appears as a marked thickening.
This was constant on one position on one of the cylinder panes.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Christmas 1973 Error
Interesting variation.
I'd like to see the other minor variety you mention as well - the retouched 3.
Anyone have a copy?
Login to Like
this post
12:20:36am
re: Christmas 1973 Error
The retouched 3 is visible in the photos posted by Roy, as Nigel pointed out. The 2nd stamp from the left in Roy's 1st photo, then the enlarged area of the retouched 3 at the far left of the 2nd photo. A close look at the 3 shows a just discernable thickening of the it's bottom half.
Login to Like
this post
re: Christmas 1973 Error
I'm not sure if the stamp on the FDC shows this retouch or not.
Here's a scan from the SG catalogue:
and a smaller scan at 150 dpi of just the figure "3".
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Christmas 1973 Error
Think this illustrates the thick/thin 3p value.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
22 Aug 2023
09:55:20pm
re: Christmas 1973 Error
I'm not really a "varieties guy", but I thought the essence of the SG varieties guide listing for this stamp was the "jog" in the outline of the "3", as I attempted to highlight in the edited version of the previous picture seen below. (Please forgive my shakey mouse work. It's the best I could accomplish).
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Roy
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Christmas 1973 Error
Roy, it looked that way to me, which is why I wrote that I think it may illustrate the flaw/error. Could not find any other examples where there was a marked difference.
There is a visually obvious difference in the thickness of the 3, but maybe that was just overinking.
Regarding the 3½p sadly I have never found any with the missing colours.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Christmas 1973 Error
"I'm not really a "varieties guy", but I thought the essence of the SG varieties guide listing for this stamp was the "jog" in the outline of the "3", as I attempted to highlight in the edited version of the previous picture seen below."
I agree Roy.
I'm not an expert on GB cylinder layouts but I believe the retouch position information (Cyl 1B dot, R 8/7) means that:
- The retouch is on the 7th stamp from the left on the 8th row - this is the bottom row in this case.
- The affected pane is the right-hand ("dot") pane (counter sheet) of the complete sheet. Each complete sheet was guillotined into two for use in post office counter books. The example below is a "no dot" left-hand pane.
- The cylinder number, presumably the black one, affected by this is "1B." as printed in the sheet margin next to the traffic light colours in the bottom left margin of the pane. The "dot" in the name refers to the full stop (= period) printed after the cylinder number.
Here's an example taken from the internet showing a left-hand pane printed with the 2A no dot black cylinder:
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Approvals
re: Christmas 1973 Error
Have gone through my duplicates and can only come up with this slight flattening of the curve on the right hand stamp, as opposed to the rounded curve of the left stamp. Not really as pronounced as in catalogue illustration.
Login to Like
this post
re: Christmas 1973 Error
I assume there are minor variations across the sheets/cylinders and only the quoted retouch was identified as worth listing.
It would be interesting to know whether this or any other retouches on this Christmas issue are listed in the GB Specialised Volume 5 catalogue.
Login to Like
this post
re: Christmas 1973 Error
Had A look at what I might have. No retouch. Did however notice these nice shift in colors.
....
....
Login to Like
this post