tps.org.au

Tinslay's book lists a number of known plate numbers on the De La Rue
printings of the Pictorials of 1899-1900. These are:

½d - 1
1d - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
2d - 1, 2, 3, 4
2½d - 1, 2
3d - 1
4d - 1

These are the recess printed stamps produced in London, not later printings
produced in Melbourne.

Often, the plate number is not present, probably due to being trimmed off.
Note that Tinsley doesn't record plate numbers for 5d or 6d but presumably
they existed. Also, no Plate 6 for 1d is noted by Tinsley.

Has anyone out there seen plate numbers not recorded by Tinsley as shown
above? I would much appreciate your help.

Bill

I can't add any new Plate numbers to your list but I can add something unusual. I have 1d Plate 3 with reversed watermark. I'd be interested if any other watermark varieties exist on the recess printings - without or without plate numbers.

I'm happy to post a scan if someone would like to tell me how.

John Pearson.

Bill, John -- I don't know if this is anything special, but I picked up a 1/2d recess pair with what appears to be a partial plate number. The number does not appear to be a 1, which is the only number recorded for the 1/2d. It does appear to be a 3, but I can't be positive. The center protrusion makes it appear to be a 3. I have two full sheets of the 1/2d but neither has a plate number to compare. Attached is a portion of the pair and an enlargement of the number. Any thoughts?

Hi Jerry,

I don't have the 1/2d plate number to compare your item. However I do have 1d Plate Nos 1, 2, 3 (with abnormal watermark), 4, 7 & 8. The numeral "1" on the 1d is a much thicker numeral than the other numerals. It also has serifs which most of the others don't (except for No. 7). However your marginal marking looks too thick to be a plate number & couldn't be construed to be a "1". It also bears no resemblance to the 1d Plate No. 3. The screw clamp markings found on some sheets are always faint & circular in the selvedge, which eliminates that possibility. The perforation guide lines are "crosses" of straight lines. Your pair displays the top vertical line of such a cross & provides the basis of my speculative guess. My suspicion is that your marking is some sort of excess ink marking from the perforation guide cross that should've been guillotined off. A protruding part of the printing plate near the cross might've caught some ink & appeared in the selvedge but I'm very open to better informed guesses.

Regards, John.

Thanks John. You may be correct, although it appears to neat to be excess ink.

Would someone please post a plate number 1 on the 1/2d. Thanks!

On page 81 of Tinsley's book, there is a photo of the 2.5d Plate 2. The interesting thing is the location. It is immediately to the left of the perforation guide cross - the same as your mystery marking. That can't be a coincidence. The numeral 2 is complete & much thinner than your marking but that photo increases the chance that you have the top half of a plate number. However I can't make out your numeral.

Some interesting feedback from John and from Jerry. The inverted watermark on the 1d
with plate number is apparently not recorded in the literature. The plate number on the
½d stamp is also unclear to me as well as other readers. It would be nice to know what
it could be.

Bill

A new pictorial plate number has been found--a plate 2 on the 1/2d recess. This is particularly interesting to me because I have a partial marking (possibly another new number) on a 1/2d recess (see post of 30 March 2020). The plate 2 marking is immediately left of the marginal cross which is the exact position of my unidentified marking. I've added the scan of the new item here to keep this post up to date with known plate numbers. The item is Lot 992 of Abacus Auction 250.

This post revisits my earlier post of 30 March 2020. That post shows an unidentified marking that I speculated was a plate number. I now believe that is a plate number 1--in an advanced form of degradation.

I purchased a second 1/2d recess pair also with half a plate number that I am confident is a number 1. The pair from 30 March 2020 and the new pair are shown below. The reason I believe these are the same is because the two stamps (positions 25 and 26) show the same plate/print flaws indicating the same printing plate. Position 25 shows a short diagonal color line in the 1 of the left 1/2d. Position 26 shows a thickened top frame at right and an extension off the top right corner. There are other smaller common flaws, but these are sufficient.

In addition, I think the small white flaw in the plate number 1 (top scan) got larger over time creating the larger white flaw seen in the second plate number 1 (bottom scan). If the white area was filled with green color, I think the vertical portion of the number would also be the same thickness as the number 1 in the top scan. To support this hypothesis of white flaws in the numbers, take a look at the 1/2d plate number 2 shown in the post of 13 February 2023 which shows similar white flaws.

I think this solves the mystery of the original post. Comments are welcome.
Note: I edited this post on 1 Feb to correct the stamp positions.