I am not particularly confident about identifying flaws on the Pictorials but from what I am able to find in the literature:
- this must be from the Electrotypes ( Melbourne) printings given the perf and watermark.
the Australian Commonwealth Specialist Catalogue does not list anything remotely like these mark. However, the Author of the ACSC did not list very many flaws at all on the Pictorial issues.
the only other detailed work, Keith Lancaster's "The Pictorial Stamps of Tasmania" ( 1986) however list a very large number of Pictorial flaws, and the author has plated many of these. The majority are tiny white specs and scratches .
In checking Lancaster's list for the 1d Electrotypes again I cannot see anything which resembles the marks shown in Laurent's example. However, nearly all Lancaster's flaws are described in text, there are no images and I may have mis-interpreted his descriptions. He lists 59 positioned flaws and 14 un-positioned flaws for the 1d Red electrotype printings.
I have seen numerous abrasion marks on these stamps which can superficially look like plate flaws but under strong magnification you can see the paper has been damaged, hence I suspect Ross is correct - the marks are probably scuff marks.
Ps - we hope within 12 to 18 months to publish up-to-date information about the Melbourne printings of these stamps as the printing records have been located . It will be interesting to see how the authors will treat the issue of the permanent plate varieties - its a huge job .
Pete