1d PLATYPUS REPRINT WITH VALUE PRINTED SEPARATELY

[Ross Ewington]

This may be nothing new but it's interesting to note that this particular reprint doesn't appear to have been listed by Craig or Butler or Elsmore.

b101.jpg (97.18 KiB) Viewed 2328 times

The listed REPRINT. (from 1901) is on the original issue i.e. with the value printed as part of the whole stamp design.

This stamp is from the 1900/03 printing where the value of the stamp was printed separately (and was often displaced).

What's this all about? Can anyone set me straight?

[bill]

Ross

I'm sure I've seen similar items before. Does your item have a watermark?
I suspect there is no watermark. Also, how thick is the paper. As far as
I am aware from past experience, the paper is rather thick, almost like
card. What did you notice about the paper?

The perforation may be close to 11.8 according to the Instanta gauge.
Is this what you find? Surely this item is really a reprint made because
stocks of originals were exhausted. These reprints are found in the
Specimen/Reprint sets distributed circa 1901.

I hope this helps.

Bill

[Ross Ewington]

thanks Bill

The reprint is on thick, unwatermarked, gummed paper and is perf. 12 .... not
11.75 as per the 1903 printing (or the 1901 'value included in design' REPRINT !)

My query is has this REPRINT been overlooked (?) .... meaning it's probably not so rare but just not
listed with this perf and the value printed separately.

[bill]

Ross

I have a couple of examples, one with marginal tab.

It is not rare but the listings in the catalogues are confusing.
It exists also without REPRINT and I have one of those, I think.

Bill

[Revenuer]

Ross you mention not listed by Elsmore. The 1 & 6d ARE listed as 1901 reprints in the 1st section of the 1880 issues.

[Ross Ewington]

thanks Dave .... I have now seen the small print but.......

1d Platypus reprint.jpg (44.65 KiB) Viewed 2308 times

Your listing may imply that the 1900 1d blue is on card ... not on thick unwatermarked paper
Also, the local reprints of the 1880 design were perf. 11.75 and not 12 as is this example.

Can I correct my previous statement a little by saying 'not quite recorded by Elsmore'?

[bill]

Ross

The paper is so thick it might as well be card.

What did you Instanta gauge say correct to 1 decimal place when you measured it?

Bill

[Ross Ewington]

thanks Bill

it's not thick enough to call 'card' ...definitely 'thick paper'

I measured the perforations so many times I nearly wore the stamp design away ..... it's exactly perf. 12 (i.e. 12x12)

[bill]

Ross

OK. It's perf 12 so you need not wear the design off the stamp altogether.

It occurs to me that the catalogue writers themselves are confusing! Time
and time again I have puzzled over the extant listings. We have a research
problem, it seems. My examples are best described as thick paper. It's not
quite card as you say - I was exaggerating a bit. The paper is quite thick so
some writers call it 'card' and thereby add to the confusion. So both you and
I (and also Dave) would like to completely resolve the confusion.

Even Butler's account in the past Chapter of Tinsley is not as lucid as it looks.
This is why we're trying to establish exactly what reprints there actually were
and whether they come with or without REPRINT (with or without a full stop
after the word). The situation is clearer with regard to the Dragons as there
are reprints on thin paper with and without REPRINT (no full stop) and reprints
on thick paper without REPRINT. (imperf) and with REPRINT. (perforated and
full stop).

In the case of Platypus, only 1d and 6d were reprinted since 3d and 1/- lasted
until the end of 1900. The 1d exists with and without REPRINT. and the 6d is
found with REPRINT. I have not seen a reprint of the 6d without the overprint
REPRINT.

I'm sorry for this long digression. Thanks for raising the issue on the BB.

Bill

[Revenuer]

Sorry for the confusion. I knew what I was saying but agree it must have confused others. I hope this is more clear? I blame the proof reader [my wife!!].

's Tas Rev Cat.jpg (26.94 KiB) Viewed 2294 times

[Ross Ewington]

Now "recorded by Elsmore" .... thanks Dave !