Unusual Specimens

[jorija]

I acquired these about 45 years ago. They were part of a collection which included specimens from the other states, which I had an option on but chose not to buy (money's scarce when you're 15!)

I had never seen any more except that in the late 70's I remember bidding at a TPS "sale by tender (sic)" against a prominent Tasmanian philatelist, now deceased, for a single stamp, not a value amongst these. I believe it might have been a 6d tablet, but I'm not quite sure. He bid me up further than I could afford and thus secured the item - I have no idea where it might have gone.

I'm posting these pictures because it would be interesting to know if anyone has examples of these, or knows anything about them. I hasten to add that I no longer own them.
They were sold to a Victorian philatelist who specializes in Australian States Specimens via a "major auction site" a few years ago.

[br]

[John Shepherd]

This very interesting set of specimens was the subject of an article by me in The Courier when the set was sold quite a few years ago.

The overprint on this 'set' is unique on Tasmanian stamps AFAIK which would tend to rule out production for a UPU presentation set. The set appears to be without gum suggesting it was applied to a presentation sheet of some kind. The stamps are originals not reprints. The presence of the 1891 6d Chalon and the 1892 Keyplates, but absence of the 1 Pound and pictorials would suggest they were made c.1892 or a bit later. There may well be a 6d Keyplate missing as John J suggests. The set appears to be a record of stamps currently on sale rather than a record of all stamps issued by the Colony to that point in time - the set is not supplemented by reprints of obsolete issues as was the practice when preparing UPU specimen sheets. The absence of the 6d Mauve Platypus, stocks of which may have been exhausted, may be important in this regard too.

There are some unique Specimens opts on Sideface issues from the 1870s and this set belongs in that basket. The reason for production can only be speculated about - possibly for a visiting interstate official, an interstate Postmaster General, or possibly even for one of the Constitional Conventions. I am sure there may be other possibilities also.

[jorija]

Thanks John, for your comments. I will try to track down the article in The Courier, as it would be interesting to read what you wrote. I don't know what happened to Lew's collection after his passing, but the "odd stamp" mentioned probably was still in it at that time. I sold the main "set" in Feb 2005.

And while we're about the subject of unusual specimens, here is a strange block I sold about the same time to the same buyer (?) (sorry about the green "watermarks")
This block is strange, of course, in that the (imperforate) stamps are printed on unwatermarked, thin, tough (pelure?) gummed paper, and the specimen overprint spacing is obviously incorrect for the size of the stamps.
I wonder whether this is a plate proof or a reprint - it certainly is not a specimen, in the accepted sense of the philatelic term.
[br]

[Revenuer]

There are a number of possibilities that can be considered here. It is worth noting many of the other states presentation ‘sets’ [very neatly done] included the Beer Duty issues, which, in Tasmania were available at the early time and this group could have easily been included. The £1 Queen was, and still is, hard to find ‘clean’.

Below a group of somewhat neater 'Specimen's.

scan0019a.jpg (92.15 KiB) Viewed 5431 times

[jorija]

The small specimens were not sourced locally. The lot, which included complete specimen sets of the current postage stamps of WA, SA, Vic, NSW and Qld, came from Sydney in the mid 1960s. I had these in my possession too, for a week or so, but the price asked was too high and I only collected Tasmania, so they were returned to the vendor (I believe it might have been Steven Gero - a stamp dealer active in Sydney at the time), who was happy to break the group. The stamps were originally attached to fragments of pages which were ruled (printed) with rectangles large enough to contain each stamp. Most were stuck on by their gum, but some had been removed and replaced using hinges.

[jorija]

Nothing has happened to these stamps in the past 40+ years except for some minor "conservation" by removing them from proximity to foxed paper. The page fragment with the 1/2d Keyplate on it was torn through the corner of the stamp, which is why it is missing a corner. The torn portion was not present in the group as purchased.

While they do look amateurish it would seem unusual to me for specimens to be faked 45+ years ago. I well remember that specimens and reprints were considered little better than "album weeds" back then, and the prices were commensurate (see scan below).

For those of you who don't recognize this distinctive handwriting, this is a TPS sale-by-tender backing sheet from Jim Petterd [noted Hobart dealer], for a lot he sold in the late '60s-early 70's, which I won. I hasten to add it DOES NOT refer to the specimens in this thread. It did however include a 3d St George '79 reprint with the overprint inverted, plus the 1d and 3d platypus with horizontal "Specimens" - nice items!

I bought most of my specimens and reprints from him, and his going price was 6d-1/6 for any Tasmanian specimens and reprints. I started collecting them because it was a cheap way to own examples of stamps I could not otherwise afford as a kid. What I'm getting at is, why weren't postmarks faked onto these stamps rather than specimen overprints - surely a nice used 10/ Keyplate or St George with a postal cancellation would be worth far more, even back then? I suppose the answer will never be known.

[John Shepherd]

John,

The Specimen overprints on the 'set' were validly done.

The Specimen on the 1/2d Sideface imperf is an interesting case worthy of further study. The stamps are both imperf and without watermark - the latter fact establishes that it was a special printing. The reason for the printing is less clear. I can not recall seeing one stuck on a Specimen sheet (but there may be one around). This particular Specimen overprint was used on the Sideface issues but it is usually misaligned on this particular 1/2d printing.

[Revenuer]

John S.,

Can you please share with us ALL your research on this SPECIMEN overprint.

Dave

[Ross Ewington]

There is nothing wrong at all in asking the question "are these legitimate specimen overprints?" but
in my opinion, the specimen overprints are more likely than not to have been produced by a post office employee.
However,as there appears to be no duplicated examples(i.e. more than one of each denomination), the probability of it
being a "one off" production does actually weaken any reasoning that could result in stating (with absolute confidence)
that they were "officially produced" (i.e. upon a directive by the Postmaster-general, the Secretary GPO,the government
minister "responsible for", etc.).

One possible explanation for their existence which I favour is that they may have been prepared for a public display of
available postage stamps at the GPO (or another large PO such as Launceston) similar to the specimen overprints on
various Kangaroo and George V definitive issues that were displayed as "advertising" at the Melbourne GPO in the 1920s.
There was also an International Exhibition in Launceston around the time the overprints may have been produced and these
could have been a "one off" for a display of Tasmanian stamps. Now there's a job for someone if all the displays at the
exhibition were photographed ....I'll provide a magnifying glass!!

[jorija]

Yesterday I did a little thinking about the unusual specimen set, and looking at them I found an interesting sequence. There is only one of each denomination in postage and revenue stamps. Therefore it seems that there may be as many as 5 stamps missing. Considering the number of options for each denomination, it looks less like a concocted group by a faker than the result of asking a post office clerk to take one value from each denomination folder he had in his stock some time in 1892. Anyway, that's my take on it. Purely conjecture of course, but what do you think of this theory?

[Ross Ewington]

Thanks John,

that's a very useful illustration you have created to assist in working out what may be missing.

I agree with John Shepherd's suggestion that the "set" was probably be produced sometime around 1892.
It couldn't have been any earlier o/wise as the 1/-,2/6d & 10/- QV Tablets (Key-Types) that were issued in
November of that year could not have been included.

The "missing" 5/- & £1 values were issued in 1897 and the 10d (replacing the 10d S/Face) in 1899 and
would have been readily available for inclusion if the "set" had been produced at the end of the decade.

Therefore, the "missing" stamps from the set would mostly likely comprise (if it were created in say 1893):

QV S/Face: 9d pale blue
QV Tablet (Key-Type): 6d

As there are examples of two different 1/- stamps in the "set", there could also have been additional duplicated values
(of stamps produced in the early 1890s such as the ½d orange and 2½d on 9d pale blue QV S/Faces) but I think
this would have been unlikely if supporting the "what a PO clerk had in this stamp folder at the time" theory (which is
just as good as any other!!).

It is unlikely that the 1d Platypus would have been included as genuine postal use of this stamp is not often seen (i.e.
the 1d QV S/Face would have been readily available in stamp folders at all post offices).

[jorija]

As I see it, and why I came to group the stamps in such a manner was that there are: 2 different 3d, 2 different 1/-, 2 different 2/6 and 2 different 10/-. In each case the second example of the denomination is a postal fiscal, whereas the first example is a postage stamp. Therefore I thought, maybe what we have here are essentially two displays: postage stamps and fiscal stamps.

This would then result in there being a 1d and 6d platypus missing from the fiscal set and a 9d, 5/- and possibly £1 denomination missing from the postage set. Also, a missing 6d keyplate would be in accordance with the denominations available, if the set were produced in say, 1892-1893, but not necessarily included if the person assembling the set was told to include "1 of each denomination"

[John Shepherd]

I incline towards the set being produced pre-1896 hence the lack of a 1 pound tablet.

Pre-1896 would 'eliminate' the 1896 printing of the 9d Sideface. The 1871 printing of the 9d sideface was very small and would have been exhausted by the 1890s (in this regard Basset Hull records only a small number of 1871 issue 9d's in stock as at 1889 - see appendix).

The 4d bistre/yellow appears to me not to be the 1896 printing but an 1880s printing. The 1896 printing is much finer than this, the earlier printings are poorer quality. The presence of the earlier printing would certainly put the set at pre-1896.

There should be a 2 1/2d overprint but that is probably missing.

[Ross Ewington]

Moderator's Note:

It has been deemed necessary for the site administrator and moderator to edit some of the previous posts in this topic.
This may have resulted in some minor "hiccups" in the natural flow between some of posts although we have tried to
maintain the "narrative" to the best of our abilities.

[Revenuer]

Robson Lowe mentions a few SPECIMEN overprints on Side face type II paper.

They also mention overprinted CANCELLED.

They list the key plate specimen issues as cancelled centrally in blks of 4 by a date stamp. Does any reader have any of these to show?

I am presuming the imperf CANCELLED that are shown here are proofs are on Crown CC paper .

Can anybody speculate on a date that these were done?

I am also wondering if all these recorded SPECIMEN & CANCELLED overprints are recorded by Samuel. Does anybody have his book.

Dave

[attachment=0]t1.jpg[/attachment]

[jorija]

Nice proofs, Dave!
I know I saw some of these years ago in an exhibition and I'm sure I made some notes about their origin - hopefully I still have them.

Don't know just how scarce some of these (once owned by me) below are - just wanted to share with you.

[bill]

On further investigation, these unusual specimens look similar to a set in the back of
Butler's chapter (Chapter 16) in Tinsley's book (1986) with overprint 11.5 mm long and
1.5 mm high. The Specimens are only 11mm including the comma. The height of the
Specimen is closer to 11.25mm than 11.5mm but this looks close enough to the items
described by Butler. In Chapter 16 of Tinsley (Section J), Butler lists an unexplained
specimen set which corresponds with the one illustrated by jorija.

In conclusion, this set is essentially the same as that in Butler's chapter. It might even
be the very same set but we do not know for sure.

[jorija]

Bill, a very interesting post to me! I might mention that I have no knowledge of the publication you mention (I have been away from Tasmanian philately for some time) but I do know that "my" set was never photographed, seen or otherwise displayed during the time I had it, except that I once showed it to Lew Viney, and he could not provide any information about it. I owned the set from some time in the mid-late 1960's to 2005.
I'm wondering if the authors of the book saw or knew of another set like "mine" in someone else's possession.

[Ross Ewington]

Here is the relevant excerpt from the chapter by Butler in "Tasmania - Stamps and Postal History" by W.E. Tinsley, RPSL (1986)

[attachment=0]butler excerpt.jpg[/attachment]

"On further investigation, these unusual specimens look similar to a set in the back of
Butler's chapter (Chapter 16) in Tinsley's book (1986) with overprint 11.5 mm long and
1.5 mm high. The Specimens are only 11mm including the comma. The height of the
Specimen is closer to 11.25mm than 11.5mm but this looks close enough to the items
described by Butler. In Chapter 16 of Tinsley (Section J), Butler lists an unexplained
specimen set which corresponds with the one illustrated by jorija."

Well spotted Bill ! ..... the stamp values and types that Butler lists are identical to those being discussed. I am bold enough to declare them to be
one and the same. Anything that Lew Viney saw would have been duly noted and communicated to other collectors including Gene Tinsley with
whom he was a regular correspondent I believe.

If the current owner could confirm the 11x1.5mm measurement* stated by Butler, it may be nearly "Q.E.D." on this one although the reason for the production of
these SPECIMENS is still worth pursuing (although now probably lost in the "mists of time").

* the measurement provided by Butler may not be "exact" in metric measurement as it was probably measured originally in fractions of an inch and
then converted to millimetres for the chapter in Tinsley.