This is interesting stamp, that I'm having trouble identifying. First thing to say is that postmark clearly has this cancelled on 30 SP 95.
So by date of issue the "base" stamp would be according to CP listings be either:
D3g - Rotary perf 10
D3i - Compound Perf 10 & 11
Perforations are 11 on top, 10 on each side, but right hand side also has perforations guaging 11. The bottom is less clear but again I can detect both perf 10 and 11 guages have been used.
So options I guess are:
D3g (u) Mixed perfs 10 & 11
D3i (y) Mixed perfs 10 & 11
Posted by: VR
9/1/2010, 11:40 pm
Re: Help on identification of a 2d SSF mixed perf
A very nice example of mixed perfs. Well centred and with clear, dated, postmark.
The question you ask however highlights one of the major problem areas within this issue - perforations.
Catalogue categorisation (SG and CP catalogues in particular) can be very confusing and, in many cases, misleading.
In identifying a specific stamp we often need to call on a number of visual clues (the gauge of perforations that can be seen and measured, postmark and printing for example) and, also, consider the way in which the various perforating machines were employed by the Government Printer.
The stamp you show here is Die 3 but in this case this is largely irrelevant as all stamps with perfs gauging 10, 11 or a combination of the two used together will be Die 3.
The postmark doesn't help us differentiate the options as the perf 10 machine was in use from 1890 and the perf 11 machine from around the middle of 1895.
Therefore to distinguish between the two types of mixed perfs you mention in your question we need to know a little more about the way the perforating machines were used.
For this stamp to be D3g (u) in the Campbell Paterson catalogue the stamp would have been perforated originally using the rotary perf 10 machine to produced both horizontal and vertical perforations.
Subsequently the stamp has been re-perforated using the perf 11 machine on at least one of the vertical sides and at least one of the horizontals. There is some partial evidence of re-perfing on the upper edge (towards the right side) but not enough to measure I would guess.
So it could be D3g (u) with mixed perfs 10 and 11.
For it to be D3i (y) the stamp would have started life with compound perfs, i.e., perforated 10 on the horizontal edges and 11 on the vertical sides. It would then have been re-perforated 11 on at least one of the horizontal edges but would also have to have been re-perforated 10 on the verticals. There is a theoretical possibility that it was imperf down the left side - and then re-perforated with the 10 machine.
This is where we need to apply knowledge of usage of the perforating machines. Examples of double perfs, both gauging 10 are known on a number of values in the sideface issue. They tend to be quite close together suggesting the second line of perfs is not intended to correct badly misplaced perfs. I am also unaware of any examples of misplaced perfs gauging 11, officially patched, and then re-perfed 10.
By comparison the perf 11 machine was used extensively to re-perforate sheets with missing or misplaced rows of perforations.
With your stamp therefore it is almost certain that the perf 10 sides came first and the perf 11 machine was used to add the additional perfs. Therefore in my opinion your stamp cannot be D3i (y) and hence must be D3g (u). Official expertisation by RPSNZ might be an idea.
I hope you can follow the logic and that you agree with my conclusion.
You must be logged in to post messages to this board.
The NZSGB is not responsible for the content of messages posted and requests that members of the Discussion Board take care when posting messages to avoid words which are defamatory or in any way offensive.
Hosted for FREE by Boardhost. 10 years of reliable service. Create yours!