Tasmania 0fficial roulettes and perforations SG 91-126
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:55 pm
Hi folks
At the base of the Stanley Gibbons catalogue of SG 126 is a paragraph that reads:
"These local separations (Nos 91/126) were often applied only the horizontal rows or vertical columns of sheets, so that pairs can be found "Imperforate vertically" or "imperforate horizontally".
The early Victorian roulettes (SG 46-56) were only rouletted in one direction....meaning that all pairs will be imperforate horizontally or vertically depending on how they were rouletted at the GPO counters in Melbourne.
My understanding of these issues was this was not the case with the Tasmanian separations......and that the statement below SG 126 IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
I have seen a number of these issues, and it appears that all the sheets were perforated or rouletted in both directions. There is nothing in the Robson Lowe book or Tinsley stating that they were only perforated or rouletted on one side.
Can anyone support the SG claim? Or....like me, we need to provide them with information to remove the statement....
Regards
Gary
At the base of the Stanley Gibbons catalogue of SG 126 is a paragraph that reads:
"These local separations (Nos 91/126) were often applied only the horizontal rows or vertical columns of sheets, so that pairs can be found "Imperforate vertically" or "imperforate horizontally".
The early Victorian roulettes (SG 46-56) were only rouletted in one direction....meaning that all pairs will be imperforate horizontally or vertically depending on how they were rouletted at the GPO counters in Melbourne.
My understanding of these issues was this was not the case with the Tasmanian separations......and that the statement below SG 126 IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
I have seen a number of these issues, and it appears that all the sheets were perforated or rouletted in both directions. There is nothing in the Robson Lowe book or Tinsley stating that they were only perforated or rouletted on one side.
Can anyone support the SG claim? Or....like me, we need to provide them with information to remove the statement....
Regards
Gary