Hello friend!
Yes, is the Die II, they not have more differences. I checked my notes and is the same information.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Rodolfo
Thanks Rodolfo, that is interesting. So that is a variety that neither my Scott 2007, my Australiasian Stamp Catalog or my album documents. I haven't found something like that before.
What book did you take these images from? It documents these die varieties very well.
Thanks again for your help.
Regards ... Tim.
Ps. Could someone who has a more current Scott catalog than my 2007 version please check to see if there is a #57 die II listed in the Australian section?
My Scott's 2012 only lists type IV for Scott 57.
Thanks Bob. Looks like I have an exception to the norm.
Regards ... Tim.
Gibbons adds a little to this.
SG #75 is SG Die IIB (this is the same as Scott #57 and Die IV.
Gibbons offers one more thing to look at. The 1 pound stamp has an incomplete corner to the inner frame line at the top right.
Neither Scott nor Gibbons mention this stamp being produced under a different die. Maybe you should contact Scott and see if you can get the stamp listed if it is a Die II?
I hate to even bring this up but my first impression when I saw Tim's scan was that the kangaroo looked crude and may be a forgery. I am not an expert in this area by any means. I searched the internet for other images of this stamp. I'm not 100% sure the image I found is legit but here is a side by side comparison. Tim's image is on the left. Like I said, I'm not an expert and can be way off. But I think this has to be a possibility. Sorry Tim...
Hi friends!
Tim.- a few years ago I obtained my notes of the Scott Stamp Monthly (I not remember the number and I forgot to save it, sorry).
About the stamp, Look genuine for me. I know that the fake £1 stamps do not have Watermarks and the paper is a bit thick.
Regards!
Rodolfo
Bob and Rodolfo,
Thank you both for your research on this issue for me. You raise and interesting question Bob that I hadn't considered. The stamp does have an appropriate watermark and I found an article on the web, Linn's I think, where it was talking about the one pound stamp being produced in a Die II, which is what I think this is assuming it is real. I wish I could swap it for the stamp that you found Bob, but I'll keep it in my collection until I can find a better one. This stamp has a catalog value of $350, if this one isn't real it will just have to do.
Thanks again .... Tim.
Maybe you can post this on StampBoards which is an Australian based discussion group. Looks like there are a lot of experts there.
http://www.stampboards.com/
Bob
Tim,
What concerns me most about your stamp is the back of the kangaroo. It looks like a blob of black ink. The kangaroo in the other stamp seems to have fine lines running through it breaking it up with some white in it. Perhaps yours is a worn plate although it's typographed. Like I said, I'm not an expert in this area. I hope it is real and the one I posted is fake. Actually sometimes fakes look better than the real stamp and that is how you know it is fake.
Bob
Wow, Bob, you sure opened up a can of worms!
Seeing the two side by side, there certainly are many major differences between them. The original was lithographed. Tim's stamp looks typographed, and the major design components: value, circle, for example appear to be too small.
You have a good point Bob. There sure are a lot of differences between the two stamps.
Tim.
Hi Everyone,
I believe this stamp is an Australian #57 (from Scott 2007).
My Scott 2007 says that this stamp should be a Die IV, which means that it should have a break in the outside border just between the "S" and the "T" in Australia. I can't see any break there. I think this is a Die II.
Normally a Die I has a break in the inner border just to the left of top of the denomination. Die II normally has no breaks in either inner or outer border. Die III has a break in the inner border on the left in line with the nose of the Kangaroo and Die IV has the break in the outer border between the S and the T.
What do you guys think? Is Scott wrong and this is a variation that they haven't documented? Am I blind (which is happening more and more)?
Regards ... Tim.
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Hello friend!
Yes, is the Die II, they not have more differences. I checked my notes and is the same information.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Rodolfo
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Thanks Rodolfo, that is interesting. So that is a variety that neither my Scott 2007, my Australiasian Stamp Catalog or my album documents. I haven't found something like that before.
What book did you take these images from? It documents these die varieties very well.
Thanks again for your help.
Regards ... Tim.
Ps. Could someone who has a more current Scott catalog than my 2007 version please check to see if there is a #57 die II listed in the Australian section?
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
My Scott's 2012 only lists type IV for Scott 57.
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Thanks Bob. Looks like I have an exception to the norm.
Regards ... Tim.
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Gibbons adds a little to this.
SG #75 is SG Die IIB (this is the same as Scott #57 and Die IV.
Gibbons offers one more thing to look at. The 1 pound stamp has an incomplete corner to the inner frame line at the top right.
Neither Scott nor Gibbons mention this stamp being produced under a different die. Maybe you should contact Scott and see if you can get the stamp listed if it is a Die II?
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
I hate to even bring this up but my first impression when I saw Tim's scan was that the kangaroo looked crude and may be a forgery. I am not an expert in this area by any means. I searched the internet for other images of this stamp. I'm not 100% sure the image I found is legit but here is a side by side comparison. Tim's image is on the left. Like I said, I'm not an expert and can be way off. But I think this has to be a possibility. Sorry Tim...
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Hi friends!
Tim.- a few years ago I obtained my notes of the Scott Stamp Monthly (I not remember the number and I forgot to save it, sorry).
About the stamp, Look genuine for me. I know that the fake £1 stamps do not have Watermarks and the paper is a bit thick.
Regards!
Rodolfo
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Bob and Rodolfo,
Thank you both for your research on this issue for me. You raise and interesting question Bob that I hadn't considered. The stamp does have an appropriate watermark and I found an article on the web, Linn's I think, where it was talking about the one pound stamp being produced in a Die II, which is what I think this is assuming it is real. I wish I could swap it for the stamp that you found Bob, but I'll keep it in my collection until I can find a better one. This stamp has a catalog value of $350, if this one isn't real it will just have to do.
Thanks again .... Tim.
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Maybe you can post this on StampBoards which is an Australian based discussion group. Looks like there are a lot of experts there.
http://www.stampboards.com/
Bob
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Tim,
What concerns me most about your stamp is the back of the kangaroo. It looks like a blob of black ink. The kangaroo in the other stamp seems to have fine lines running through it breaking it up with some white in it. Perhaps yours is a worn plate although it's typographed. Like I said, I'm not an expert in this area. I hope it is real and the one I posted is fake. Actually sometimes fakes look better than the real stamp and that is how you know it is fake.
Bob
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
Wow, Bob, you sure opened up a can of worms!
Seeing the two side by side, there certainly are many major differences between them. The original was lithographed. Tim's stamp looks typographed, and the major design components: value, circle, for example appear to be too small.
re: Need help with an Australian Kangaroo
You have a good point Bob. There sure are a lot of differences between the two stamps.
Tim.