Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
It looks convincing to me, but I am not an expert.
What should I look for?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Afraid not. To be genuine, the stamp would need to have a pair of silk threads running vertically. I can't see any, so this will be a stationery cutout
Login to Like
this post
I know it was too good to be true. Not going to give up immediately though: are these silk threads visible on the front side? What colour are the threads?
Login to Like
this post
In addition my Y&T catalog indicates that there should be a plate number with the letters WW at the bottom of the head. Michel (I never saw that stamp - guess why)
Login to Like
this post
There's some variation in thread colour, but they are easy to spot
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Reverse scan?
Login to Like
this post
@lerivage
Please show a scan with arrows of the plate number you said there was?
Maybe I'm stupid tonight but you said "(I never saw that stamp - guess why)", what is "guess why"?
1898
Login to Like
this post
The Die number is on the bust per the pic below. Very hard to see though. The "Guess why" is because a mint stamp is catalogued at at least £24,000!
Login to Like
this post
09:25:03am
It is a cut square from a private order postal stationery envelope. I do not have an example of the 1/- in my database, but here is a 6d from the same series:
There are four versions as described by Higgins & Gage
three circles in border design with numerals representing day, month and year of issue ) (1855-1890)
Undated. Without circles, florets or palmettes in border (1892-1898)
Florets consisting of 5 dots (1894)
Florets consisting of 9 dots (1894)
Yours appears to be the undated version of 1892-1898
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
What is a cut square?
Does it show the plate number?
Does it show the silk threads?
Can you show an enlarged scan with arrows pointing to the silk threads and plate number?
Login to Like
this post
cut squares are trimmed from a postal card or postal stationary. They had franking power while they are part of the "entire" but, at least in the US, lose it upon being removed from their "entire."
Scott details postal stationary in the BOB
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
Here is something I found in a collection between a few QE 2 stationery cutouts. My question is simple: could this really be a Scott #5 / Michel #7?
It looks convincing to me, but I am not an expert.
What should I look for?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
Afraid not. To be genuine, the stamp would need to have a pair of silk threads running vertically. I can't see any, so this will be a stationery cutout
Login to Like
this post
Approvals
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
I know it was too good to be true. Not going to give up immediately though: are these silk threads visible on the front side? What colour are the threads?
Login to Like
this post
02:54:18am
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
In addition my Y&T catalog indicates that there should be a plate number with the letters WW at the bottom of the head. Michel (I never saw that stamp - guess why)
Login to Like
this post
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
There's some variation in thread colour, but they are easy to spot
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
05:53:36am
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
Reverse scan?
Login to Like
this post
07:15:52am
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
@lerivage
Please show a scan with arrows of the plate number you said there was?
Maybe I'm stupid tonight but you said "(I never saw that stamp - guess why)", what is "guess why"?
1898
Login to Like
this post
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
The Die number is on the bust per the pic below. Very hard to see though. The "Guess why" is because a mint stamp is catalogued at at least £24,000!
Login to Like
this post
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
02 Oct 2023
09:25:03am
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
It is a cut square from a private order postal stationery envelope. I do not have an example of the 1/- in my database, but here is a 6d from the same series:
There are four versions as described by Higgins & Gage
three circles in border design with numerals representing day, month and year of issue ) (1855-1890)
Undated. Without circles, florets or palmettes in border (1892-1898)
Florets consisting of 5 dots (1894)
Florets consisting of 9 dots (1894)
Yours appears to be the undated version of 1892-1898
Roy
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:30:40am
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
What is a cut square?
Does it show the plate number?
Does it show the silk threads?
Can you show an enlarged scan with arrows pointing to the silk threads and plate number?
Login to Like
this post
re: Queen Victoria Sc. #5 1847 - real or not?
cut squares are trimmed from a postal card or postal stationary. They had franking power while they are part of the "entire" but, at least in the US, lose it upon being removed from their "entire."
Scott details postal stationary in the BOB
Login to Like
this post