Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
This stamp is in rough condition. Normally, I wouldn’t spend much time with it, but it has me puzzled. It is perf 15 and I cannot find a listing in either my 2019 Scott Classic catalog or my 2005 Stanley Gibbons Commonwealth catalog. Those listings are basically the same in both catalogs.
Scott lists #72 as perf 15½. #72a is listed as perf 14. Scott #99 (1909) can be perf 15, but it should be surcharged or overprinted. Stanley Gibbons #90 and #90a are perf 15½ and 14, respectively. Stanley Gibbons #113 (1909) is overprinted and perf 13½ to 15.
Both Scott #99a and SG #113a identify a vertical pair with the lower stamp missing the overprint.
Unless I am overlooking something, this stamp appears to be the separated lower stamp of the Scott #99a / SG #113a vertical pair. Neither catalog lists a value for the vertical pair used. The unused values are $47,500 and £25,000.
The color of my stamp doesn't seem to have any of the purple or violet color that the listings mention (gray-purple and gray-violet), but that could just be my eyesight and desk lighting misleading me.
Can anyone explain where I might be missing something or misinterpreting what I’m reading? Or, is this likely to be a lower half of the vertical pair?
If we can determine what this is, how would you value it?
Thanks for your help!
Tom
Login to Like
this post
To me it is odd that the catalog singles out p15 1/2 and p14 for Scott #72 and none of the other stamps in that set have any perf delineations other than the "13 1/2 to 16" for the entire set. Then the overprints are only on p14 and p15 stamps? And again, other than #100 in that set, no other perf delineations. Gibbons is the same for these sets except the set perfs are 13 1/2 - 15 1/2 for the basic set and 13 1/2 - 15 for the overprints.
To me it seems more logical that the catalog listings for some reason aren't correct and consistent, if this was any other stamp in the set other than the 1 or 2 pound you wouldn't even be looking at the perfs on a catalog basis. I'd assume it's a 72 and if certain of the perf 15 send a note to Scott/Gibbons as catalogs do have errors.
I do see old Rhodesian specialized catalogs available from book sellers online, they appear to be from the 70s and 80s, so I don't know how detailed they would be, but if perf varieties exist of this series, one would think someone would be cataloging them! Perhaps buy one of them and see if that gives more information.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
When collecting this area, especially the high values, one has to be extremely cautious for washed fiscal cancels and faked postal cancels.
I am not calling this particular stamp out based on an image, but with stamp in hand it would be something that I looked closely at... (even if a stamp has condition issues, fakers almost always 'practice' on stamps with condition issues first).
Don
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Given the multitude of perforation varieties for this particular series, it shouldn't be surprising that the catalogue editors have had a hard time keeping up.
To the best of my knowledge, the best reference for these is "A Guide to the postage stamps of The Rhodesias and Nyasaland" published by the Mashonaland Philatelic Society in 1965. I have included below a table from the guide listing the various perforations for each denomination in this series:
According to this table, the £1 denomination can be found in p14, p14½ x p15, p15 x p14½, p15, p16.Interestingly p15½ is not listed, but the table is nearly 60 years old so could be outdated, or your stamp could possibly be a shrunken p16.
Although your stamp may appear rough, the perforations are fairly typical for all the £1 denomination stamps of this series that I have come across.
Despite the territory administered by the BSAC having been given the name Rhodesia in the mid-1890s, it was only in 1909 that they decided to feature the name on stamps by overprinting this series. The overprints were on existing stock, so it is unlikely that your stamp would have been one of a vertical pair with one stamp missing the overprint, and even in the unlikely event that it was, it would be impossible to tell.
That being said, as stocks of some of the smaller denominations ran low, some of these values were reissued and overprinted which accounts for variations in papers and shades, but this did not apply to the £1 or other higher-value denominations.
Clive
10 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Thank you all for the very informative replies. I was delayed in responding by a PC crash that prevented all Microsoft Office software from loading. Couldn’t find a solution online for this old Windows 7 and Office 10 setup, but several hours of reading and experimenting finally led to my stumbling on a solution. Many years ago, I enjoyed these challenges, but they’ve become headaches as I now look back on middle age and the good old days.
Jerry reminded me that the catalogs are incomplete tools. In fact, I had forgotten about contacting a Scott catalog editor many years ago following a pair of similar discussions. I no longer remember what the issues were, but Michael numbers directed me to the appropriate editor and changes were eventually made.
Don raised a couple of issues that require in depth proficiencies I’ve never developed to the point where I would trust my own analysis. These aspects of philately can be fun, but most of the time that I had expected to be devoting to stamps in this century was hijacked. Instead, I’ve been slowly selling my stamps from the old pre-1940 colonial Africa collections I had acquired back in the 1980s. I regret never getting very far with my own collection. On the bright side, I’m recovering that investment and am learning more about these stamps in the process of selling them. Plus, it’s a nice feeling to know I’ve helped many hundreds of collectors fill some voids in their collections and I am left with a digital stamp collection to enjoy.
Clive’s presentation is a reminder of how much valuable philatelic knowledge has accumulated and been presented in one form or another over the years. I have seen numerous examples of discussions like this where collectors such as Clive take the time to share valuable information that many of us would probably overlook. It is just one of the many great things that make this hobby so enjoyable and rewarding.
I appreciate all the help. I’ll try to find time in the next few days to get the contact info for catalog editors. I’ll reference this discussion and suggest they provide more complete entries in their catalogs for this group of stamps.
Tom
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This stamp is in rough condition. Normally, I wouldn’t spend much time with it, but it has me puzzled. It is perf 15 and I cannot find a listing in either my 2019 Scott Classic catalog or my 2005 Stanley Gibbons Commonwealth catalog. Those listings are basically the same in both catalogs.
Scott lists #72 as perf 15½. #72a is listed as perf 14. Scott #99 (1909) can be perf 15, but it should be surcharged or overprinted. Stanley Gibbons #90 and #90a are perf 15½ and 14, respectively. Stanley Gibbons #113 (1909) is overprinted and perf 13½ to 15.
Both Scott #99a and SG #113a identify a vertical pair with the lower stamp missing the overprint.
Unless I am overlooking something, this stamp appears to be the separated lower stamp of the Scott #99a / SG #113a vertical pair. Neither catalog lists a value for the vertical pair used. The unused values are $47,500 and £25,000.
The color of my stamp doesn't seem to have any of the purple or violet color that the listings mention (gray-purple and gray-violet), but that could just be my eyesight and desk lighting misleading me.
Can anyone explain where I might be missing something or misinterpreting what I’m reading? Or, is this likely to be a lower half of the vertical pair?
If we can determine what this is, how would you value it?
Thanks for your help!
Tom
Login to Like
this post
re: I have this Rhodesia stamp that doesn't seem to be listed in Scott or Stanley Gibbons
To me it is odd that the catalog singles out p15 1/2 and p14 for Scott #72 and none of the other stamps in that set have any perf delineations other than the "13 1/2 to 16" for the entire set. Then the overprints are only on p14 and p15 stamps? And again, other than #100 in that set, no other perf delineations. Gibbons is the same for these sets except the set perfs are 13 1/2 - 15 1/2 for the basic set and 13 1/2 - 15 for the overprints.
To me it seems more logical that the catalog listings for some reason aren't correct and consistent, if this was any other stamp in the set other than the 1 or 2 pound you wouldn't even be looking at the perfs on a catalog basis. I'd assume it's a 72 and if certain of the perf 15 send a note to Scott/Gibbons as catalogs do have errors.
I do see old Rhodesian specialized catalogs available from book sellers online, they appear to be from the 70s and 80s, so I don't know how detailed they would be, but if perf varieties exist of this series, one would think someone would be cataloging them! Perhaps buy one of them and see if that gives more information.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: I have this Rhodesia stamp that doesn't seem to be listed in Scott or Stanley Gibbons
When collecting this area, especially the high values, one has to be extremely cautious for washed fiscal cancels and faked postal cancels.
I am not calling this particular stamp out based on an image, but with stamp in hand it would be something that I looked closely at... (even if a stamp has condition issues, fakers almost always 'practice' on stamps with condition issues first).
Don
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: I have this Rhodesia stamp that doesn't seem to be listed in Scott or Stanley Gibbons
Given the multitude of perforation varieties for this particular series, it shouldn't be surprising that the catalogue editors have had a hard time keeping up.
To the best of my knowledge, the best reference for these is "A Guide to the postage stamps of The Rhodesias and Nyasaland" published by the Mashonaland Philatelic Society in 1965. I have included below a table from the guide listing the various perforations for each denomination in this series:
According to this table, the £1 denomination can be found in p14, p14½ x p15, p15 x p14½, p15, p16.Interestingly p15½ is not listed, but the table is nearly 60 years old so could be outdated, or your stamp could possibly be a shrunken p16.
Although your stamp may appear rough, the perforations are fairly typical for all the £1 denomination stamps of this series that I have come across.
Despite the territory administered by the BSAC having been given the name Rhodesia in the mid-1890s, it was only in 1909 that they decided to feature the name on stamps by overprinting this series. The overprints were on existing stock, so it is unlikely that your stamp would have been one of a vertical pair with one stamp missing the overprint, and even in the unlikely event that it was, it would be impossible to tell.
That being said, as stocks of some of the smaller denominations ran low, some of these values were reissued and overprinted which accounts for variations in papers and shades, but this did not apply to the £1 or other higher-value denominations.
Clive
10 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: I have this Rhodesia stamp that doesn't seem to be listed in Scott or Stanley Gibbons
Thank you all for the very informative replies. I was delayed in responding by a PC crash that prevented all Microsoft Office software from loading. Couldn’t find a solution online for this old Windows 7 and Office 10 setup, but several hours of reading and experimenting finally led to my stumbling on a solution. Many years ago, I enjoyed these challenges, but they’ve become headaches as I now look back on middle age and the good old days.
Jerry reminded me that the catalogs are incomplete tools. In fact, I had forgotten about contacting a Scott catalog editor many years ago following a pair of similar discussions. I no longer remember what the issues were, but Michael numbers directed me to the appropriate editor and changes were eventually made.
Don raised a couple of issues that require in depth proficiencies I’ve never developed to the point where I would trust my own analysis. These aspects of philately can be fun, but most of the time that I had expected to be devoting to stamps in this century was hijacked. Instead, I’ve been slowly selling my stamps from the old pre-1940 colonial Africa collections I had acquired back in the 1980s. I regret never getting very far with my own collection. On the bright side, I’m recovering that investment and am learning more about these stamps in the process of selling them. Plus, it’s a nice feeling to know I’ve helped many hundreds of collectors fill some voids in their collections and I am left with a digital stamp collection to enjoy.
Clive’s presentation is a reminder of how much valuable philatelic knowledge has accumulated and been presented in one form or another over the years. I have seen numerous examples of discussions like this where collectors such as Clive take the time to share valuable information that many of us would probably overlook. It is just one of the many great things that make this hobby so enjoyable and rewarding.
I appreciate all the help. I’ll try to find time in the next few days to get the contact info for catalog editors. I’ll reference this discussion and suggest they provide more complete entries in their catalogs for this group of stamps.
Tom
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.