Double perforations on 1d Sideface

[John Campton]

I have seen many double perforations on Pictorials and have a good spread in my collection as well as a triple perforation. However I purchased this the other day on spec as I have not seen a double perforation on a 1d Sideface.

I have not found anything written up on them thus far and wonder if someone can throw some light on the subject.

It is perforated 11.5 x 11.5 and the double perf is also 11.5

Sideface double perf 11.5 x 11.5.jpg (66.03 KiB) Viewed 15991 times

[bill]

John

Can you say what watermark is present?

[John Campton]

Hi Bill,

Barred Numeral is a bit of a nuisance with placement near the watermark but it is W16 which should make the stamp SG 160 1d dull red circa 14.2.1889. Do not believe it is SG 171 1d rosine, perf 11 1/2 circa 1891.

But then again I am red/green colour confused so I will let you be the judge of the colour.

Hope this helps Bill.

Kind regards John

[bill]

The stamp should have watermark TAS type 16 as in the Stanley Gibbons catalogue.
The stamp is probably dull red SG160 as I don't see any trace of vermilion as found
in SG160a (vermilion-red as Gibbons says). It can't be SG171 which has TAS type 15
watermark as per Gibbons. Note that scans don't always correctly copy the shade
so a little caution is prudent.

Perforations are better described as 11.4 while the '12' perforation is really 11.8.
The best account of these perforations is in Craig & Ingles' catalogue of railways
and revenue stamps, page 9. (Those notes apply to many postage stamps in the
colonial era, not just the St George and Dragon types.)

The double perforation may have arisen on the grounds that the left perforation
was too far to the left so a new line was placed in the correct position.

The only other case of a double perforation I've seen on a Sideface is the 1d with
watermark '10'.

Bill

[John Campton]

Thanks for that information Bill.

Seeing that the only double perforation you have seen on a Sideface I thought you may enjoy this double perf on 9d Sideface with official repair. Postally used FE 26 10.

Double perf 9d Sideface Official repair front.jpg (62.9 KiB) Viewed 12434 times

Double perf 9d Sideface Official repair back.jpg (48.43 KiB) Viewed 12434 times

I am fairly new to this type of identification but the perforation on my Stanley Gibbons perf guide works out to be 12 x 12.5. Watermark is hard to identify but appears to be Crown over A sideways. The 1906-09 9d Sidface SG 256c has a perf 12.5 x 12 and I wonder if a printing error has manifested itself by having the normal perf placement reversed, and hence watermark sideways, and has also been problematic requiring reperforation and official repair.

I would image that if these stamps were used in normal postage, as this one has, that possibly the official repair would have floated off if the stamp was left too long to remove it from the cover. Lucky this one held together. Your comments appreciated Bill.

[bill]

From the date of the postmark, the stamp is very likely to be watermarked Crown / A.
Try a watermark detector or a few drops of watermark fluid in a small black tray.

The Specialists' Catalogue, Early Federal Era, does not list this double perforation.
Mixed perforations are recorded in that catalogue for Crown / A only. By the way,
the gauge is most correctly described as 12.4 line, done in Melbourne.

This is an interesting discovery.