Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
You might remember this one;with the partially inverted Wmk.Whoever repaired the Dandy roll put the top two Rosettes the wrong way round.If you want to se what a Dandyroll looks like go here: https://www.google.ie/search?q=dandyroll&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=clJfVPO7F-aw7Ab2h4CgDA&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=937
(Modified by Moderator on 2015-01-12 09:05:25)
Login to Like
this post
Charlie, congratulations on receiving the certificate. I seem to recall a lot of head scratching about this one.
Now I don't know how you feel about this yourself but it seems to be a rather poorly worded certificate; unless of course there is other documentation you haven't shown.
How would anybody reading it, know what the variety was?
This is rather typical of RPS certification that I have seen. They don't exactly strain their wrist muscles, do they?
Login to Like
this post
Perhaps if Charlie could point you to the original thread, all might be clarified.
In the meantime, the variety was a partial inversion of the watermark. There are normally four emblems in the upright position, but two were inverted; an error made during the preparation of the dandy roll.
I've at last located the original thread:
General Philatelic/Gen. Discussion : Unknown Watermark ???
However, because the OP didn't actually load the image(s) but just pasted in a link, the image has gone.
I do wish posters would consider this problem. Now some of the content and context is lost.
Login to Like
this post
I ask why they were not specific,and was told that once they declared a stamp genuine that all parts of the stamp would be genuine;ie;colour,perf's ,paper etc.
Login to Like
this post
As to the inv.wmk look at the top part ,whoever repaired the wmk made a mistake,and inverted the top two.
Login to Like
this post
Incidentally;I just bought something else.If the postmark is real I'm going to have a very stupid smile for a very long time. If it's wrong I'll just kiss another bottle; trouble is they never kiss back..
Login to Like
this post
The left hand image is watermark W20 taken from a Stanley Gibbons catalogue.
The right hand image is my attempt at showing what Charlie has got on his 6d lilac SG97. The bottom two emblems (the shamrock and thistle) are now transposed. Thus we have a part watermark inversion.
] 
I hope this is beginning to make sense, as it is not your run of the mill watermark variety.
Login to Like
this post
Charlie,
May I suggest you re-post your latest Maltese Cross find under a new thread. It will only fade into anonymity if left under a thread called 'Re Unlisted Watermark.
Can you also post a bigger scan?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Hi Michael,
Unlike Scott, SG shows its watermark images as viewed from the front of the stamp.
Login to Like
this post
Nigel's 100% right... For whatever reason SG felt the need to show the "front" of the watermark (I've never understood WHY they did that, although I assume they have their reasonings but I'll chalk it up to IDIOCY on SG's part 
), so basically SG is showing #20 WMK as if you were looking through the art and into the watermark on the stamp.
It actually took me a LONG time to figure that out (and my only SG catalog is an old 1980's catalog for GBish stuff).
Login to Like
this post
Well I'm not sure if this is IDIOCY or IDIOSYNCRASY on SG's part but you can probably see how some of us that use their catalogues, can get into a bit of a tangle with reversed and reversed inverted watermarks.
I actually didn't realise that Scott differed in the way it represented watermarks, which explains all the frustration. Having now seen how Scott does it, I much prefer it.
Anyway, I for one consider this to be a remarkable discovery. It raises a question in my mind, does Charlie inform Stanley Gibbons about this find, or will the RPS automatically do this?
Login to Like
this post
Will you please use your EYES.My Wmk is pointing UP not down as it should be.Whoever fixed the Dandyroll,that not being uncommon,put the top two Rosettes the wrong way round.As far as SG is concerned their Expert happens to be struck by Blindness,TWICE.I posted their response under unknown Wmk.You can see a Guy fixing a Dandyroll when you click the link at the top of this post.
I did send an E-Mail asking why they were not more specific and was told that once they declared a stamp genuine all parts of that stamp ie.colour,perfs Wmk etc were genuine.I got the feeling someone does not want to commit themselves too much.
Login to Like
this post
As to the Penny Black with 2 in MX I cannot post a better scan since I only bought it on Sunday.Here is the link.http://www.ebay.ie/itm/131397116405?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
Once it arrives I will put up a bigger scan.
(Modified by Moderator on 2015-01-13 08:25:11)
Login to Like
this post
I think I see what he's referring to Michael.. it took me a while to catch exactly which part of the WM Charlie was referring to.
If you look at the top two "rosettas"/"Flowers"... If you look at the examples from the catalogs, at the top of the rosettas, there should be two "petals" both off-center.
Whereas on the one Charlie's got, you can see (albeit it takes some time to focus your eyes to it) only one "petal" pointing upwards. (Again, ignore the bottom half of the watermarks).
Although I'll be honest, it doesn't surprise me that SG would be reluctant to call that a full watermark variant, but I'd guess you'd have to go look at a ton of other similar stamps to see if the watermarks are pretty much full on confirmed to match the catalog, but if the RPS says otherwise...
----
PS: Just as a word of advice, Charlie; Telling other SOR members to "open their eyes"... People couldn't see what you were pointing out, and that, JMHO, did not come across too well
Login to Like
this post
Here we go again! Frustrations and admonitions.
Tad
Login to Like
this post
I wonder if there's any reference to this watermark variety in SG's GB Specialised volume 1 catalogue. This covers just GB stamps from Queen Victoria's reign.
I'll check when I get home tonight unless anyone else does first.
Login to Like
this post
There isn't I already checked.
Login to Like
this post
06:15:02pm
" ... There isn't I already checked. ..."
That saved me as I was just about to get up and pull the SG Specialized #1 from a top shelf.
As far as repairs to dandy rolls are concerned, they do exist and can be found if you search through a large enough lot. Somewhere I have one where the wrong crown was put on a Wilding.
Login to Like
this post
You will find broken and wrong bits on the KG V as well.There are probably quite a number of them but people don't seem to notice them that often. After all how many people must have looked at my stamp in the last 150 years and never noticed the difference.
Login to Like
this post
You might remember this one;with the partially inverted Wmk.Whoever repaired the Dandy roll put the top two Rosettes the wrong way round.If you want to se what a Dandyroll looks like go here: https://www.google.ie/search?q=dandyroll&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=clJfVPO7F-aw7Ab2h4CgDA&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=937
(Modified by Moderator on 2015-01-12 09:05:25)
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Charlie, congratulations on receiving the certificate. I seem to recall a lot of head scratching about this one.
Now I don't know how you feel about this yourself but it seems to be a rather poorly worded certificate; unless of course there is other documentation you haven't shown.
How would anybody reading it, know what the variety was?
This is rather typical of RPS certification that I have seen. They don't exactly strain their wrist muscles, do they?
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Perhaps if Charlie could point you to the original thread, all might be clarified.
In the meantime, the variety was a partial inversion of the watermark. There are normally four emblems in the upright position, but two were inverted; an error made during the preparation of the dandy roll.
I've at last located the original thread:
General Philatelic/Gen. Discussion : Unknown Watermark ???
However, because the OP didn't actually load the image(s) but just pasted in a link, the image has gone.
I do wish posters would consider this problem. Now some of the content and context is lost.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
I ask why they were not specific,and was told that once they declared a stamp genuine that all parts of the stamp would be genuine;ie;colour,perf's ,paper etc.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
As to the inv.wmk look at the top part ,whoever repaired the wmk made a mistake,and inverted the top two.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Incidentally;I just bought something else.If the postmark is real I'm going to have a very stupid smile for a very long time. If it's wrong I'll just kiss another bottle; trouble is they never kiss back..
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
The left hand image is watermark W20 taken from a Stanley Gibbons catalogue.
The right hand image is my attempt at showing what Charlie has got on his 6d lilac SG97. The bottom two emblems (the shamrock and thistle) are now transposed. Thus we have a part watermark inversion.
]
I hope this is beginning to make sense, as it is not your run of the mill watermark variety.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Charlie,
May I suggest you re-post your latest Maltese Cross find under a new thread. It will only fade into anonymity if left under a thread called 'Re Unlisted Watermark.
Can you also post a bigger scan?
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Hi Michael,
Unlike Scott, SG shows its watermark images as viewed from the front of the stamp.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Nigel's 100% right... For whatever reason SG felt the need to show the "front" of the watermark (I've never understood WHY they did that, although I assume they have their reasonings but I'll chalk it up to IDIOCY on SG's part ), so basically SG is showing #20 WMK as if you were looking through the art and into the watermark on the stamp.
It actually took me a LONG time to figure that out (and my only SG catalog is an old 1980's catalog for GBish stuff).
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Well I'm not sure if this is IDIOCY or IDIOSYNCRASY on SG's part but you can probably see how some of us that use their catalogues, can get into a bit of a tangle with reversed and reversed inverted watermarks.
I actually didn't realise that Scott differed in the way it represented watermarks, which explains all the frustration. Having now seen how Scott does it, I much prefer it.
Anyway, I for one consider this to be a remarkable discovery. It raises a question in my mind, does Charlie inform Stanley Gibbons about this find, or will the RPS automatically do this?
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Will you please use your EYES.My Wmk is pointing UP not down as it should be.Whoever fixed the Dandyroll,that not being uncommon,put the top two Rosettes the wrong way round.As far as SG is concerned their Expert happens to be struck by Blindness,TWICE.I posted their response under unknown Wmk.You can see a Guy fixing a Dandyroll when you click the link at the top of this post.
I did send an E-Mail asking why they were not more specific and was told that once they declared a stamp genuine all parts of that stamp ie.colour,perfs Wmk etc were genuine.I got the feeling someone does not want to commit themselves too much.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
As to the Penny Black with 2 in MX I cannot post a better scan since I only bought it on Sunday.Here is the link.http://www.ebay.ie/itm/131397116405?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
Once it arrives I will put up a bigger scan.
(Modified by Moderator on 2015-01-13 08:25:11)
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
I think I see what he's referring to Michael.. it took me a while to catch exactly which part of the WM Charlie was referring to.
If you look at the top two "rosettas"/"Flowers"... If you look at the examples from the catalogs, at the top of the rosettas, there should be two "petals" both off-center.
Whereas on the one Charlie's got, you can see (albeit it takes some time to focus your eyes to it) only one "petal" pointing upwards. (Again, ignore the bottom half of the watermarks).
Although I'll be honest, it doesn't surprise me that SG would be reluctant to call that a full watermark variant, but I'd guess you'd have to go look at a ton of other similar stamps to see if the watermarks are pretty much full on confirmed to match the catalog, but if the RPS says otherwise...
----
PS: Just as a word of advice, Charlie; Telling other SOR members to "open their eyes"... People couldn't see what you were pointing out, and that, JMHO, did not come across too well
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
Here we go again! Frustrations and admonitions.
Tad
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
I wonder if there's any reference to this watermark variety in SG's GB Specialised volume 1 catalogue. This covers just GB stamps from Queen Victoria's reign.
I'll check when I get home tonight unless anyone else does first.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
There isn't I already checked.
Login to Like
this post
Silence in the face of adversity is the father of complicity and collusion, the first cousins of conspiracy..
15 Jan 2015
06:15:02pm
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
" ... There isn't I already checked. ..."
That saved me as I was just about to get up and pull the SG Specialized #1 from a top shelf.
As far as repairs to dandy rolls are concerned, they do exist and can be found if you search through a large enough lot. Somewhere I have one where the wrong crown was put on a Wilding.
Login to Like
this post
re: Re Unlisted Watermark
You will find broken and wrong bits on the KG V as well.There are probably quite a number of them but people don't seem to notice them that often. After all how many people must have looked at my stamp in the last 150 years and never noticed the difference.
Login to Like
this post