Alleged 1s on 3d Platypus 1913?

[bill]

The Craig and Ingles catalogue lists a possible 1s on 3d Platypus which
was supposedly issued in 1913. We know that this item has apparently
not been seen and, indeed, may not exist. If an example is found, we
can be sure that it would be a great rarity as Craig pointed out in one
of his features on Australian revenue stamps in "Stamp News" during
the 1990s.

The 1915 edition of A. Forbin's "Catalogue de Timbres-Fiscaux" lists a
1s surcharge on a 3d Platypus. It is number 42 in Forbin's listing. The
stamp is described as being a surcharge on the 3d Platypus of 1880 and
there is no reference to the presence of a "Revenue" overprint in what
the catalogue says.

Craig and Ingles supposed that this item bore a "Revenue" overprint in
view of the fact that all old stocks of Platypus (plus George and Dragon
and £1 Queens' head) were overprinted "Revenue" from November 1900.

(In passing, let it be put on record that Craig and Ingles tried to record
all possible varieties, even those not seen by them or collectors known
to them. This would encourage collectors to seek these varieties. The
record can easily be corrected later as needed.)

The real point of this post relates to the source of the alleged 1s on 3d
Platypus. The Wikipedia has an entry on Alfred Forbin, a French stamp
dealer with a special interest in revenue stamps. He also published a
journal on revenues (Le Bulletin Fiscaliste).

I suggest that Le Bulletin Fiscaliste chronicled that item in 1913. This
query is perhaps best answered by overseas philatelists with access to
old French philatelic journals. It would be very interesting to see what
the hypothesised report of 1913 had to say (in French). A translation
into English may be provided if the original report can be found.

Could someone out there please help with this inquiry?

Many thanks
Bill

[Revenuer]

It is my belief the early catalogues got mixed up re the emergency 1s on 3d and meant to say 3d Numeral not 3d Platypus. As per this stamp here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=85

I remember speaking to Ingle's on this very stamp and he agreed it was more probable the 3d numeral.

The 1s is well recorded as being in short supply several times throughout its life.

Dave

1s.jpg (26.17 KiB) Viewed 11853 times

[bill]

Thanks to Revenuer for his reply.

The possibility of a mix-up between the 3d Platypus and the 3d Numeral
is credible. Still, I wonder how this mix-up occurred. It has occurred to
me that the original report in the literature (Le Bulletin Fiscaliste?) was
ambiguously worded, perhaps by refering to the "3d old type fiscal" for
instance. The actual report may be in French, though. That explains
my query re old foreign journals at

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1066

Any holdings of that ancient journal are most likely to be in the northern
hemisphere, not in Australia.

The 1/- on 3d Numeral is known used circa 1907 and also circa 1917 but
were there any other times of use for that stamp?

Bill

[bill]

Let's have a fresh look at the alleged 1/- on 3d Platypus.

We take a good look at Forbin's catalogue (1915) as well as the Craig & Ingles catalogue.
Craig & Ingles list it as No. 60 in their catalogue, corresponding to No. 42 in Forbin. We
turn to Forbin's listing. This stamp is stated to be a surcharge on the 3d of 1880. The 3d
is No. 12 in Forbin's listing, corresponding to the 3d Platypus, first issued in 1880 for use
aa a revenue stamps without any overprint.

There is no mention at all of a REVENUE overprint in Forbin's description of his No. 42 to
be seen. The REVENUE overprints of 1900-1903 are listed as Nos. 15 to 27. However, the
surcharges of 1903 to 1905 (various forms of 1d plus a 4d surcharge) are listed as Nos. 28
to 31 but there is no mention of the word REVENUE being applied as an overprint on any
of those stamps. [Forbin (1909) made the same omission for Nos. 28 to 31.] Catalogue
numbers for ordinary revenue stamps are the same in both editions up to No. 41, the £1
of the numeral design issued for 1904 onwards.

The 3d Platypus was overprinted REVENUE from November 1900 and this work probably
continued until the first few months of 1901 as the stock was quite large. There would
not be any 3d Platypus without the overprint in stock after all that work.

It is hard to believe that a 1/- surcharge on a 3d Platypus without REVENUE could exist.
It is far more likely that the description is wrong. There was a 1/- on 3d numeral type
from 1907 (No. 102 in the Craig & Ingles catalogue). That has to be the correct stamp
that Forbin should have recorded. It was recorded in the March 1909 issue of Bulletin
of the Fiscal Philatelic Society (reprinted in 1980). Craig & Ingles do acknowledge the
possibility of this confusion being made by Forbin.

So we have to dismiss the 1/- on 3d Platypus as a non-existent item after all.

[admin]

Thanks Bill.
That makes sense.

Pete

[Revenuer]

Bill

This fantasy has never been recorded by ozrevenues.com

Dave