tps.org.au

Let's have another look at the ½d orange sideface of 1889 with special
regard to the question of how the plate was made. I have not seen any
articles in the literature on that aspect of the ½d, except to say that it
was made in Melbourne at the request of the Tasmanian authorities.

As we know from Basset Hull, this was a temporary expedient, prior to
the ½d Keyplate (Tablet) issue of 1892. It followed on from the ½d on
1d sideface surcharge (Plate 3 in the De La Rue system).

Basset Hull tells us that the ½d plate was made in Melbourne. Hence, it
cannot have the customary De La Rue plate markings. The printings are
of rather poor appearance, compared to the London printings.

Let's have a closer look at the technical aspects of this stamp. We plunge
into Geoff Kellow's book on Victoria. How was the plate made? We delve
into Chapter 14 of Kellow to see how the normal size 1885-1900 stamps of
Victoria were produced. Around 1890, this was mostly done by stamping
120 moulds (probably lead or a related alloy) and assembling them into a
plate for printing the desired stamps. Kellow says so quite clearly when
he discusses the 1d Reading design of 1890. (Have a look in the Gibbons
catalogue. It was issued from 1890 to 1901 or try Les Molnar's website
http://www.stampsofvictoria.com.)

Why is all this discussion of Victoria relevant to Tasmania? My suggestion
is that a similar technique was used for the ½d sideface issue of 1889. In
practice, the poor quality of the Hobart printings discourages attempts to
locate any constant plate varieties or subtypes. Reprints and specimens
often have a better appearance as they are usually printed on plain paper
of good quality. Hence, multiples (scarce) of these items may be worth a
closer look for checking any technical aspects of plate production.

Has anyone seen any further information about this stamp? It appears to
deserve further attention.

Bill

Hi Bill

Thanks for the update for the printing of this stamp. It does make sense......however, it still does not answer the question if anyone has seen this stamp with no watermark. I believe it could be a perforated PLATE PROOF with no watermark.....but then again, I have not seen that either, and it is not mentioned in Tinsley.

Cheers

Gary

Regarding this ½d orange stamp, it is apparently unknown who engraved
the die for this value. Continuing from my previous post on this topic,
we dig a little further into Kellow's book. Possible engravers include:

Samuel Reading, Charles Naish, Arthur Williams.

We note that the engraving of stamp dies was normally contracted out.
The identity of many of the engravers for various Victorian stamps is
known because the relevant die proofs emanated from their estates.

Coming back to Tasmania, we pose this thought. Surely somebody in
Melbourne must have engraved the die for the ½d orange Sideface but
apparently no die proofs have ever appeared on the market?

Any comments out there, please?

In September 2012 issue of Philately from Australia, there is an article
on this topic by the undersigned. Note that the caption for Figure 3 is
incorrect. There is a watermark (second type TAS).

There is the hope that collectors of Victoria as well as Tasmania may
be able to throw more light on who made the ½d die and the plate as
requested by the Government of Tasmania late in 1888. After all, it
seems reasonable to expect that the Victorian Government followed
its own customary procedures when new Victorian stamps were to be
produced so why not do the same when a stamp plate for Tasmania
was to be made?

Bill

Gary Diffen correctly points out that the ½d Sideface is known on unwatermarked paper.
While it could have been intended as a plate proof, such sheets were also overprinted with
the word SPECIMEN and used for presentation purposes. Certainly, these unwatermarked
printings look much better than the normally issued stamps (whether Type I or Type II of
the TAS watermark). As such, it may be feasible to examine multiples of these special
printings to see if anything new can be learned about the construction of the plate.

There is apparently some evidence of the ½d Sideface being issued unwatermarked but
proof is not yet conclusive. A number of sheets were printed on unwatermarked paper
to prepare reprints for official purposes. One has to find used examples that were not
just printed on TAS paper that was badly misplaced on the printing plate, with stamps
on the edges therefore missing the watermark. Multiples are the safest way here.

The stocktake of 31 December 1889 showed 179,580 of the ½d in stock. There may be
a few of the Halfpenny on 1d Sideface in this count but Basset Hull does not tell us. It
is on page 132 of Basset Hull's book (1890).

The De La Rue history by Easton (1958) says that there is no record of De La Rue having
made a die or plate for the Halfpenny, the crude appearance of which confirms that it
was produced in the Colony (sic). Basset Hull says the plate was made in Melbourne.